The idea behind animal welfarism is to improve the conditions under which animals are kept in captivity by humans – whether for their meat, their eggs, or any other purpose.
For example, this includes banning the use of battery cages for hens in the egg industry (as is the case in Switzerland), or banning the use of fast-growing chicken breeds (as is expected to take effect in Norway in 2027).
Activists and organizations working to promote animal welfare are (mostly) driven by a desire to reduce suffering. Ironically, however, their actions achieve the exact opposite result: they increase suffering because they promote public relations for the exploitation itself.
Every system of oppression loves people who make it look as though it can be reformed, instead of making it clear that it can only be rejected. It loves people who reduce a moral emergency to a debate over standards and regulations. It loves people whose focus is on the conditions of confinement, rather than the abolition of slavery itself.
Animal Welfare = The Anesthetic of Conscience
Non-vegans love it when you talk to them about improving conditions. Why? Because you help them cleanse their conscience while they imagine in their minds that they are on the side of the animals. You validate the fact that they view animals as slaves and normalize their choice to oppress them.
This makes non-vegans feel better about the fact that they exploit animals, and this comfort distances them from veganism. Instead of rejecting animal exploitation, they simply learn to live in peace with it.
This leads to the tragic irony of promoting animal welfare – that while it stems from an intention to reduce suffering, it actually increases it in practice.
When a non-vegan feels more comfortable with exploitation, they will not only continue to engage in it, they will feel more comfortable causing more of it. After all, if without battery cages “the chickens don’t suffer,” the moral barrier is removed, and they can supposedly feel completely comfortable eating more eggs. The direct consequence is more animals born into a world of exploitation, and more cumulative suffering.
This phenomenon is not a hypothesis; it is based on a proven, researched psychological mechanism called “Moral Licensing.” This mechanism shows that once a person performs an action they perceive as “good” or “considerate” (such as purchasing a product with a welfare certification standard), they feel they have accumulated credit and balanced out their “debt.” Their conscience is at peace, and precisely because of this, they feel free to continue transgressing and consuming more of that same suffering without an ounce of guilt.
Debunking Pro-Welfarism Arguments
Under the guise of a supposedly “pragmatic” approach, I have heard several arguments attempting to defend the idea of promoting animal welfare. I will address each claim in detail:
“We just have a different tactic!”
No, it is not a different tactic.
A different tactic for liberation still puts animal liberation front and center and communicates it clearly.
If what you are promoting still includes exploitation, ownership, and control over others, you do not have a different tactic – you have a different goal.
There is a fundamental disagreement here on the question of whether other animals exist for human use or not.
If you had worked in the 19th century to improve the diet of slaves on plantations or to limit their working hours, you would not be “liberation activists with a different tactic” – you would be slavery regulation activists. You would be making slavery more socially acceptable, and thereby prolonging its existence.
The system doesn’t need regulation. It needs abolition.
“But the chickens in cages are suffering right now, it’s better for them to live in a larger cage!”
This argument is based on a marketing illusion. The truth must be stated in the clearest possible way: no animal currently being exploited in these industries will ever “get” to see the fruits of these welfare campaigns. Nothing can be done for the animals currently being exploited, except for actively breaking in and liberating a few individuals. Legislation and changing standards take years, sometimes decades.
For example, the campaign to ban live exports in Israel has been ongoing for over a decade. This is not “taking care of the animals suffering today.” Instead, it is a massive diversion of manpower, energy, resources, and money away from promoting liberation and shortening the animal holocaust, and toward perpetuating and refining the status quo. The efforts invested in this specific campaign alone could have led to the creation of thousands or tens of thousands of abolitionist vegans, bringing us closer to the liberation of animals.
“But if we demand welfare, product prices will rise and people will buy less!”
This is a common economic argument, but it is fundamentally flawed for three main reasons:
- Exploitation industries always find a way to streamline cruelty: When welfare restrictions are imposed on the industry, it simply finds technological or logistical solutions to compensate for the costs and maintain profitability. Less crowding in the coops? They will switch to genetically engineered breeds that lay more eggs in a shorter time. A ban on battery cages? They will build massive, multi-tiered industrial cage-free coops where chickens are still crowded by the thousands, but the cost per egg remains virtually identical.
- Government subsidies bypass the free market: Animal products do not operate in a true free market. Governments around the world subsidize the meat and dairy industries with billions of shekels to keep these products cheap and accessible to the public, regardless of actual production costs. Political pressure from lobbyists will always cause the state to absorb “welfare” costs instead of letting the consumer price skyrocket.
- The “moral premium” effect: When a product is labeled as having “higher welfare,” people are willingly prepared to pay a higher price for it. The high price does not deter them – it actually reinforces their moral licensing mechanism. The consumer tells themselves: “I am paying more, which means I am a good person who cares.” This extra money does not go toward saving animals; it flows directly into the pockets of the industrialists, who receive a massive economic incentive to continue branding exploitation as “premium and humane.” And let’s not forget – this completely creates a moral comfort zone for the customer who, by purchasing “free-range eggs,” gets the impression that their conscience is clean.
“Welfare is a necessary transitional stage. Society cannot change overnight. First, we will get them used to eating free-range eggs, and then it will be easier for them to take the next step to veganism.”
This is a grave and flawed logical conclusion that operates under a concept called “Neo-Welfarism” – the idea that promoting animal welfare will lead to their liberation. Welfare is not a first step toward veganism; it is an alternative destination. It provides the consumer with a comfortable moral docking station where they can stop and remain forever. Instead of creating momentum for change, it creates stasis. People who buy “free-range eggs” or “humane meat” do not feel like they are on the path to veganism – they feel like they have already done their part, and with that, the struggle grinds to a halt.
“Promoting animal welfare helps non-vegans feel like they are on the side of animals, and then they will be more open to transitioning to veganism.”
I still find it hard to believe that a vegan activist in an organization promoting animal welfare made this argument to me in all seriousness. This argument stems from a sales concept called the “foot-in-the-door” technique, according to which people who agree to a small step for a certain cause tend to agree to larger steps later on. While this works for commercial marketing, it does not work in the context of oppression.
It works exactly the opposite way – because non-vegans feel they are on the side of the animals when they sign a petition to ban battery cages, they won’t make any actual change, and their exploitative mindset toward animals intensifies. When a non-vegan signs the petition, they aren’t taking a step for animals – they are taking a step in the opposite direction. By attempting to treat the symptom (battery cages), activists who promote animal welfare exacerbate the root of the problem (an exploitative mentality toward other animals).
“The movement needs to promote welfare to make things easier for the animals! Otherwise, their conditions won’t improve!”
This is a myth.
Many mistakenly believe that if we do not demand improved conditions (welfare), nothing will change on the ground. This is a strategic error that legitimizes oppression. Our role as activists is not to sanitize oppression or improve the “quality of life” of those defined as property, but to lead to the complete abolition of this status.
So, who will promote animal welfare? The industry itself.
When the vegan movement stands firm on a clear and uncompromising message – “animals are not property” – the public conscience begins to awaken. As more people stop consuming animal products, exploitation industries lose significant market share and their profits suffer.
In this situation, the industry plunges into a crisis. To survive, it takes a step that makes perfect business sense:
- Soothing the public conscience: The industry launches “welfare” campaigns (such as “free-range eggs” or “humane farming”) not out of compassion for the animals, but as a tool for marketing and damage control.
- Saving the bottom line: They invest in cosmetic improvements to allow consumers to continue consuming products of exploitation without guilt, thereby partially neutralizing the moral pressure we have applied.
“Welfare legislation enshrines animal protection within the legal system.”
The reality is exactly the opposite. Welfare laws do not protect animals; they protect the industry from lawsuits for abuse.
The moment the law defines precisely how many centimeters a chicken can be confined to, or at what age a pig’s tail can be cut without anesthesia, the state is effectively saying: “As long as you operate according to this standard, your action is legal, moral, and protected.” Welfare laws turn exploitation into an authorized industrial protocol, making it legally harder to define this system as a crime.
“You are using the example of slavery in America, but historically, the abolitionist movement relied on interim laws!”
That is true. For example, first the Atlantic slave trade was banned (1807), and only decades later was slavery itself abolished. These interim laws gradually suffocated the industry.
But there is a vast difference between a law that reduces the scope of an industry or bans certain aspects of it (such as the ban on using animals in circuses) and a law that regulates the conditions of exploitation (such as determining how many lashes of a whip a slave will receive). Welfare laws do not suffocate the industry; they make it cleaner and more aesthetically pleasing in the eyes of the public.
“So we shouldn’t run any single-issue campaigns?”
It depends. Single-issue campaigns, such as a protest against the Grand National – an annual event in the UK where horses are exploited on a long obstacle course – can be a powerful tool for completely abolishing specific forms of exploitation and changing the social perception toward animals, emphasizing that they are not tools for human use.
The key emphasis here is that such protests must convey a message not only that this specific form of exploitation needs to be abolished, but that it is a symptom, and the root of the problem is the human sense of entitlement to use animals.
On the other hand, single-issue campaigns that aim to abolish a specific practice within a system of exploitation, such as a ban on using specific breeds of chickens in the meat industry that grow too rapidly, merely sanitize the oppression instead of rejecting it.
“So you’re saying it’s better for them to suffer more?!”
An emotional counter-accusation hurled against abolitionist activists who fiercely oppose the promotion of animal welfare is that, out of ideological purism, we supposedly prefer for animals to suffer more.
There is a vast difference between reducing suffering at the micro level (if you see an animal suffering on the street, of course you should do everything to alleviate its pain right here and now) and the legal institutionalization of suffering at the macro level.
Welfare campaigns do not save the specific chicken currently confined in a coop; they shape and normalize production conditions for the billions of future animals who will be born into this system. The moment a rights organization signs off on a “moral standard” defining how many centimeters a chicken can be confined to, it becomes a partner to the contract of exploitation. We are not choosing for them to suffer more – we are refusing to take part in managing and streamlining slaughterhouses. Anyone who wants to reduce the suffering of chickens right now should stop funding this industry and start promoting abolitionist veganism, instead of trying to redesign their cage.
We must never forget that we need to work toward ending the animal holocaust – not take actions that prolong it, even if it is emotionally difficult not to opt for “easy” solutions.
The Trap of Animal Rights Organizations
I am about to talk about the elephant in the room.
Large welfare organizations are trapped in a business model that forces them to showcase “quick wins” in order to raise donations from the general public (which is predominantly non-vegan).
It is much easier to run a sponsored campaign like “Help us get the chickens out of battery cages!” and receive a million signatures and donations from non-vegans who want to feel good about themselves. If they were to run a fierce, persistent abolitionist campaign that tells the public the truth straight to their faces – “You are the problem, stop demanding exploitation” – their donors (most of whom, remember, are non-vegans) would withdraw their financial support, and employees within the organization would lose their jobs.
Welfare organizations have developed a financial dependence on perpetuating regulation. They need the industry to continue to exist and only change slowly, just so they have a next campaign to sell to their donors. Tragically for the animals, these are ironically the largest organizations claiming to represent them in terms of financial resources and social media followers.
This means that activists who truly want to see animal liberation cannot expect meaningful change to come from such organizations.
But the good news is that the opposite is true – individual abolitionist activists have the power to create massive change for animals because they are not bound by the same heavy chains holding welfare organizations back. They do not rely on donations generated by promoting welfare. Raffaela (The Militant Vegan) from Germany is a prime example of this – she is likely the person who has made the most significant impact on the vegan discourse in her country, thanks to her uncompromising work demanding veganism as a moral baseline.
Closing Statement
For a deeper dive into the subject, I recommend watching the debate regarding the promotion of animal welfare via the attached link on George Martin’s channel.
The problems I noted in this article are another reason why centering vegan discourse around animal abuse and suffering is a terrible mistake. It offers non-vegans an escape hatch into the sweet illusion of animal welfare. They will try to argue that they don’t need to change – that the industries need to change.
Instead, focusing on exploitation as the centerpiece of the discourse forces non-vegans to confront a much more direct issue: their oppressive relationship with animals. They cannot blame anyone else. They must consciously choose either the way of violence and oppression, or align themselves with a solution of peace and freedom.
Promoting animal welfare is not a step in the right direction, nor is it merely an obstacle along the way. It is a step in the opposite direction. It is the anesthetic of the moral conscience. It is the tool of the industries that profit from animal exploitation.
Promoting animal welfare is a problem, not a solution.
Leave a Reply