First: regulating doesn't make it just
Some people think that if exploitation is regulated so animals don't suffer, there's nothing wrong with it, even if they're killed. The author rejects this: death is still a big harm, and exploitation still disrespects equal consideration.
But among people who think exploitation should end, there are two debates.
Debate 1: does regulation help abolish exploitation?
Arguments for:
- stricter and stricter rules would make exploitation more and more expensive and difficult, until it's no longer worth it;
- debating rules makes people think about animals' suffering.
Arguments against:
- rules can make people feel better about continuing to consume ("now it's humane");
- the industry can use the rules as advertising.
And even if regulation helps abolish exploitation, we still have to decide whether it's worth spending resources on it instead of on other strategies.
Debate 2: does regulation reduce suffering?
There's also debate about whether rules really reduce suffering in practice, and by how much. Some changes may help many animals; others may be just for show.
In short
- Regulating exploitation doesn't make it just.
- There's debate about whether rules help end exploitation.
- There's also debate about whether they really reduce suffering.