Welfare standards are the domain of legislation, veterinary science, and certification labels (like "Certified Humane" or "RSPCA Assured").
While united in their conclusion (abolition), the logic differs. Welfare standards are the domain of legislation, veterinary
In contrast, Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights (1983) presents a deontological (duty-based) argument. Regan argues that humans and certain animals are “subjects-of-a-life”—they have beliefs, desires, memory, and a sense of the future. As such, they possess inherent value that cannot be traded off against the utility of others. Critical Weakness: The absolutism of rights theory creates
Strengths:
Critical Weakness: The absolutism of rights theory creates practical conundrums. What happens when fundamental rights conflict? For example, if a starving human on a desert island has only a pig to eat, strict rights theory would demand starvation. Furthermore, applying the same political rights (e.g., self-determination) to wolves or rats is biologically incoherent. applying the same political rights (e.g.
You support reform. You buy "certified humane" labels. You vote for ballot measures banning gestation crates. You believe in the "happy meat" paradox—that we can engineer a kinder death. Critics call this welfarism—it makes consumers feel better without dismantling the system.