The accusation
"Helping wild animals is welfarism." For many animal advocates, this word is a criticism, because it suggests just "improving" exploitation instead of ending it.
The word has several meanings
The author shows that "welfarism" can mean three different things:
- 1. Thinking there's nothing wrong with exploiting animals, as long as their suffering is reduced.
- 2. Thinking exploitation is unjust and should end, but that regulating it can lead to its end.
- 3. Thinking exploitation is unjust and should end, but that, in the meantime, regulating it reduces animals' suffering.
There's a debate about whether regulations really lead to the end of exploitation or reduce suffering. To avoid confusion, the author doesn't even use the word "welfarist" for these positions.
Where the confusion is
All three of these positions are about animal exploitation. The proposal to help wild animals has nothing to do with exploitation. It aims to prevent natural harms, like disease and hunger, that humans don't cause.
So calling it "welfarist" mixes up different topics. Wanting animals to be well isn't the same as accepting exploitation.
In short
- "Welfarism" has several meanings, all tied to exploitation.
- Helping wild animals has nothing to do with exploitation.
- So the accusation mixes up different topics.