Hereâs what I personally think about using welfare vs. rights jargon in my advocacy. These are some unpolished thoughts that Iâm hoping to explore further in the future.
Pro welfare:
Some anti-incrementalist animal advocates try to gatekeep the term âanimal rightsâ. They frequently complain when incrementalist folks use the expression âanimal rightsâ. When I ask these advocates âWhat kind of empirical evidence would change your mindâ sometimes I get the response âNo biased study in this speciesist world would make me sell out my principles. Just like no evidence could convince me there could be merits to torture, Iâm never going to negotiate on the basic rights of animalsâ. This makes me react âOk, in that case Iâm not going to swear allegiance to your banner and I will grow what I believe to be goodâ.
Existing animal advocacy is already heavy on rights. Focusing on welfare jargon allows me to raise a distinct banner, differentiate my brand and organise people who are more sympathetic towards welfarist thinking.
Iâm happy with the philosophical welfarist tradition and their moral leadership on many issues. I want to signal continuity with that tradition.
Rights based jargon is in strong tension with non-violent communication. Rights based jargon invokes a frame in which some people are sinners and should be punished. Iâm not sure how useful non-violent communication is. But if itâs useful then itâs better to avoid rights jargon.
When I look at the arguments themselves before taking peer disagreement into account, my first-order beliefs are very consequentialist. I think arguments against the significance of personal identity and arguments against the moral significance of act/âomission or intend/âforesee distinction are powerful and correct. As the main purpose of the communication is to make myself clear to the relevant stakeholders, welfare jargon is better equipped to make my beliefs clear.
Pro rights
Many people understand mere moral standing in terms of rights. Saying âanimals have rightsâ is basically equivalent to saying âanimals have moral standingâ for these people. So singling out animals by talking about âanimal welfareâ when the whole world talks about âhuman rightsâ might diminish perceived moral standing of animals.
In Turkish civil society, the term ârights basedâ is used to differentiate organisations that play by the rules of international human rights framework. Iâm a huge fan of these norms and Iâm happy to play by that book. Refusing being ârights basedâ because of my philosophical commitments would confuse people about where I stand in a political divide.
Since I take peer disagreement very seriously, I give significant credence to rights based theories and Iâm not a welfarist. I also would like basic legal human rights to be extended to non-human animals. Avoiding rights terminology makes it harder to communicate this aspect of my thinking.
I want to maintain that incrementalist animal advocacy and wild animal welfare work are actually compatible with a rights based ethical theory. By avoiding rights language, I fear conceding this framework entirely to anti incrementalist advocates.
>Rights based jargon is in strong tension with non-violent communication. Rights based jargon invokes a frame in which some people are sinners and should be punished.
Many advocates try to practice non-violent communication by merely criticising actions instead of individuals. But non-violent communication is stricter than that. Hereâs one example from âNon Violent Communication: A Language of Lifeâ. The anecdote starts with a cab driver making an antisemitic remark:
MBR: âYou know, when you first started to talk, I felt a lot of anger, a lot of frustration, sadness and discouragement, because Iâve had very different experiences with Jews than youâve had, and I was wanting you to have much more the kind of experiences Iâve had. Can you tell me what you heard me say?â Man: âOh, Iâm not saying theyâre all . . . â MBR: âExcuse me, hold on, hold it. Can you tell me what you heard me say?
Man: âWhat are you talking about?â MBR: âLet me repeat what Iâm trying to say. I really want you to just hear the pain I felt when I heard your words. Itâs really important to me that you hear that. I was saying I felt a real sense of sadness because my experiences with Jewish people have been very different. I was just wishing that you had had some experiences that were different from the ones you were describing. Can you tell me what you heard me say?â
Man: âYouâre saying I have no right to talk the way I did.â
MBR: âNo, I would like you to hear me differently. I really donât want to blame you. I have no desire to blame you.â
In this section many advocates would not be happy with correcting the expression âYouâre saying I have no right to talk the way I did.â.
In general, I think the language used for rights based theories is in continuity with religious ethics in which actions are divided into âpositive/âneutral/ânegativeâ categories. When you do negative actions you incur some kind of debt and that debt should and will be repaid in terms of punishment in hell. Forbidden actions are forbidden because God backs them up with authority. He exercises punishment when people disregard his authority.
I think given the history and culture itâs very difficult to divorce âYou have no right to do thatâ from âIt would be good if you were punishedâ and âHey, people around, punish that guy and be happy when this guy gets punishedâ.
To be fair, non-violent communication is pretty much against all morality statements. But I think welfarist language(makes happier, gives suffering, better things to do, worse things to do, results in worse/âbetter/âbest/âworst state of affairs) is less continuous with the religious tradition around debts and punishment.
Interesting â I hadnât heard that point of view before.
I think I see where youâre coming from, but I would say any kind of moral advocacy is in tension with nonviolent communication. You can go from talking about about âimproving farmed animal welfare with systemic interventionsâ to âyou are unnecessarily hurting animals by not being veganâ all in the language and framework of welfare.
This line of yours definitely continues to feel too strong to me:
>Rights based jargon is in strong tension with non-violent communication. Rights based jargon invokes a frame in which some people are sinners and should be punished.
So, to summarize: - Some animal rights activists have impractical attitudes (for creating change effectively, such as not using non-violent communication) and alienating attitudes towards non-rights-based interventions to improve animal welfare. You find value in promoting other approaches than that. - You find good arguments for welfarist tradition. - On the other hand, being against animal rights doesnât cling right and talking for animal rights can be a good shortcut. - You believe there is an overlap with welfarist and rights-based ethical theories that should be appreciated. Did I understand you right?
Hereâs what I personally think about using welfare vs. rights jargon in my advocacy. These are some unpolished thoughts that Iâm hoping to explore further in the future.
Pro welfare:
Some anti-incrementalist animal advocates try to gatekeep the term âanimal rightsâ. They frequently complain when incrementalist folks use the expression âanimal rightsâ. When I ask these advocates âWhat kind of empirical evidence would change your mindâ sometimes I get the response âNo biased study in this speciesist world would make me sell out my principles. Just like no evidence could convince me there could be merits to torture, Iâm never going to negotiate on the basic rights of animalsâ. This makes me react âOk, in that case Iâm not going to swear allegiance to your banner and I will grow what I believe to be goodâ.
Existing animal advocacy is already heavy on rights. Focusing on welfare jargon allows me to raise a distinct banner, differentiate my brand and organise people who are more sympathetic towards welfarist thinking.
Iâm happy with the philosophical welfarist tradition and their moral leadership on many issues. I want to signal continuity with that tradition.
Rights based jargon is in strong tension with non-violent communication. Rights based jargon invokes a frame in which some people are sinners and should be punished. Iâm not sure how useful non-violent communication is. But if itâs useful then itâs better to avoid rights jargon.
When I look at the arguments themselves before taking peer disagreement into account, my first-order beliefs are very consequentialist. I think arguments against the significance of personal identity and arguments against the moral significance of act/âomission or intend/âforesee distinction are powerful and correct. As the main purpose of the communication is to make myself clear to the relevant stakeholders, welfare jargon is better equipped to make my beliefs clear.
Pro rights
Many people understand mere moral standing in terms of rights. Saying âanimals have rightsâ is basically equivalent to saying âanimals have moral standingâ for these people. So singling out animals by talking about âanimal welfareâ when the whole world talks about âhuman rightsâ might diminish perceived moral standing of animals.
In Turkish civil society, the term ârights basedâ is used to differentiate organisations that play by the rules of international human rights framework. Iâm a huge fan of these norms and Iâm happy to play by that book. Refusing being ârights basedâ because of my philosophical commitments would confuse people about where I stand in a political divide.
Since I take peer disagreement very seriously, I give significant credence to rights based theories and Iâm not a welfarist. I also would like basic legal human rights to be extended to non-human animals. Avoiding rights terminology makes it harder to communicate this aspect of my thinking.
I want to maintain that incrementalist animal advocacy and wild animal welfare work are actually compatible with a rights based ethical theory. By avoiding rights language, I fear conceding this framework entirely to anti incrementalist advocates.
>Rights based jargon is in strong tension with non-violent communication. Rights based jargon invokes a frame in which some people are sinners and should be punished.
Seems wrong to me â can you say more?
Many advocates try to practice non-violent communication by merely criticising actions instead of individuals. But non-violent communication is stricter than that. Hereâs one example from âNon Violent Communication: A Language of Lifeâ. The anecdote starts with a cab driver making an antisemitic remark:
MBR: âYou know, when you first started to talk, I felt a lot of anger, a lot of frustration, sadness and discouragement, because Iâve had very different experiences with Jews than youâve had, and I was wanting you to have much more the kind of experiences Iâve had. Can you tell me what you heard me say?â
Man: âOh, Iâm not saying theyâre all . . . â
MBR: âExcuse me, hold on, hold it. Can you tell me what you heard me say?
Man: âWhat are you talking about?â
MBR: âLet me repeat what Iâm trying to say. I really want you to just hear the pain I felt when I heard your words. Itâs really important to me that you hear that. I was saying I felt a real sense of sadness because my experiences with Jewish people have been very different. I was just wishing that you had had some experiences that were different from the ones you were describing. Can you tell me what you heard me say?â
Man: âYouâre saying I have no right to talk the way I did.â
MBR: âNo, I would like you to hear me differently. I really donât want to blame you. I have no desire to blame you.â
In this section many advocates would not be happy with correcting the expression âYouâre saying I have no right to talk the way I did.â.
In general, I think the language used for rights based theories is in continuity with religious ethics in which actions are divided into âpositive/âneutral/ânegativeâ categories. When you do negative actions you incur some kind of debt and that debt should and will be repaid in terms of punishment in hell. Forbidden actions are forbidden because God backs them up with authority. He exercises punishment when people disregard his authority.
I think given the history and culture itâs very difficult to divorce âYou have no right to do thatâ from âIt would be good if you were punishedâ and âHey, people around, punish that guy and be happy when this guy gets punishedâ.
To be fair, non-violent communication is pretty much against all morality statements. But I think welfarist language(makes happier, gives suffering, better things to do, worse things to do, results in worse/âbetter/âbest/âworst state of affairs) is less continuous with the religious tradition around debts and punishment.
Interesting â I hadnât heard that point of view before.
I think I see where youâre coming from, but I would say any kind of moral advocacy is in tension with nonviolent communication. You can go from talking about about âimproving farmed animal welfare with systemic interventionsâ to âyou are unnecessarily hurting animals by not being veganâ all in the language and framework of welfare.
This line of yours definitely continues to feel too strong to me:
>Rights based jargon is in strong tension with non-violent communication. Rights based jargon invokes a frame in which some people are sinners and should be punished.
So, to summarize:
- Some animal rights activists have impractical attitudes (for creating change effectively, such as not using non-violent communication) and alienating attitudes towards non-rights-based interventions to improve animal welfare. You find value in promoting other approaches than that.
- You find good arguments for welfarist tradition.
- On the other hand, being against animal rights doesnât cling right and talking for animal rights can be a good shortcut.
- You believe there is an overlap with welfarist and rights-based ethical theories that should be appreciated.
Did I understand you right?