The philosopher Alasdair Cochrane argues that we don't need to choose. We can pursue rights for the few (primates, cetaceans) while enforcing welfare for the many (livestock).
History suggests that rights flow downhill. First, we gave rights to white male landowners. Then to all races. Then to women. Then to children. The "expanding circle" of moral consideration, as historian William Lecky noted, moves slowly outward. The philosopher Alasdair Cochrane argues that we don't
To navigate the future of our relationship with non-human animals—from the factory farm to the research lab to the living room—we must first understand where these two movements converge, where they clash, and why it matters for the 8 billion animals slaughtered annually for food in the U.S. alone. Animal welfare is a utilitarian concept. It concedes that humans will continue to use animals for food, clothing, research, and entertainment. However, it insists that this use must be humane . First, we gave rights to white male landowners
In the summer of 2023, a video went viral showing a piglet trapped in a metal gestation crate so small it could not turn around. The comments section erupted, but the arguments were strangely divided. One group demanded "better bedding and more space." The other demanded "empty the shed entirely." Then to children
This strategy has proven unexpectedly effective. By banning battery cages, egg prices rise slightly, which encourages innovation in plant-based eggs (like JUST Egg) and reduces per-capita egg consumption. By requiring CCTV in slaughterhouses, the public sees the violence, which drives demand for vegan products.
This public schism highlights one of the most misunderstood debates of our time: the difference between animal welfare and animal rights . While the phrases are often used interchangeably in casual conversation, they represent two fundamentally different philosophies. One seeks to improve the quality of the animal’s life; the other seeks to end the animal’s status as property.