A confusing word
The word "welfarism" is used for very different positions, which causes a lot of confusion. The author explains each one and suggests clearer names.
The positions
1. "Regulation makes it just" (RMJ): exploitation would be just if it were regulated so animals didn't suffer, or suffered less.
- Criticisms: it ignores the harm of death, violates equal consideration, and fails the impartiality test.
2. "Regulation helps abolish" (RHA): exploitation is unjust and should end, but regulating it would help end it bit by bit.
3. "Regulation reduces suffering" (RRS): exploitation is unjust and should end; regulating it might not help end it, but it reduces suffering while it still exists.
4. Any position that wants to improve animals' well-being, including animals that aren't exploited, like wild animals.
Why this matters
Calling everything "welfarism" lumps together positions that accept exploitation with positions that want to end it. And it mixes debates about exploitation with helping wild animals, which has nothing to do with exploitation.
With clearer names, it's easier to discuss what's really at stake in each debate.
In short
- "Welfarism" is used for at least four different positions.
- Only the first one accepts exploitation as just.
- Clearer names avoid confusion.