Welfarists argue that rights advocates are "purists" who sacrifice incremental progress for an unattainable ideal. "Abolishing all factory farming tomorrow would collapse the food system," they say. "But demanding that pigs be given environmental enrichment? That can happen next year." To the welfarist, rejecting a ban on gestation crates because you want an end to all pork is a moral failure.
It is likely that within the next two decades, at least one jurisdiction (likely the EU or a US state) will grant limited legal personhood to great apes, dolphins, or elephants. This won't shut down farms, but it will create a legal precedent that could slowly expand the circle of rights. Conclusion: You Don’t Have to Choose (But You Do Have to Act) The tension between animal welfare and rights is not a flaw in the animal protection movement; it is a feature of a complex moral universe. Absolute positions are comforting, but reality is muddy. Welfarists argue that rights advocates are "purists" who
The most cited philosopher here is Tom Regan (1983), who argued that animals are "subjects-of-a-life" with inherent value. Consequently, they possess basic moral rights, most notably the right not to be treated as property. That can happen next year