Rights Vs Welfare - What's better?

Animal Rights activists are those who believe that animals are nobody's property and any animal ownership is viewed as slavery.  

Animal welfarists are those who believe that incremental changes in the situation of animals towards the better through "humane" measures will some day lead to total freedom of animals.

As I started researching for this article, I could not find a single movement that started with welfare as its primary motive. For instance, when Ishwar Chand Vidyasagar started the movements for abolition of child marriage or widow remarriage, his motive was to eradicate the problem from the root.  He took the route of bringing about legislation for these causes.  So would I call him a "welfarist" or "activist"?  Welfare was the end result of the activism that he undertook on behalf for children and widows. 

(Source: https://www.dnaindia.com/)

Similarly, when the civil rights movement started out in the United States of America, it was to free people of colour from the oppression of the so-called upper class.  What was the end result?  The Civil Rights Act of 1957? The Civil Rights Act of 1964? The voting rights? or the housing rights?  Activists like Martin Luther King fought for the freedom of the African - Americans but the end result was the ability of the black people to participate equally in electing their leaders or buying houses in whichever locality suited to them.  I would define this as welfare.

(Source: https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/civil-rights-movement)

Closer home and in the recent past, LGBTQ rights have received a fillip especially from the Indian Judiciary.

Post Independence, The Delhi High Court decision in Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi of 2009 found Section 377 and other legal prohibitions against private, adult, consensual, and non-commercial same-sex conduct to be in direct violation of fundamental rights provided by the Indian Constitution. Section 377 stated that: "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine," with the added explanation that: "Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.

On 6 September 2018, the Supreme Court issued its verdict. The Court unanimously ruled that Section 377 is unconstitutional as it infringed on the fundamental rights of autonomy, intimacy, and identity, thus legalising homosexuality in India. The Court explicitly overturned its 2013 judgement.

"Criminalising carnal intercourse is irrational, arbitrary and manifestly unconstitutional."
— Chief Justice Dipak Misra

"History owes an apology to these people and their families. Homosexuality is part of human sexuality. They have the right of dignity and free of discrimination. Consensual sexual acts of adults are allowed for [the] LGBT community."
— Justice Indu Malhotra

"It is difficult to right a wrong by history. But we can set the course for the future. This case involves much more than decriminalizing homosexuality. It is about people wanting to live with dignity."
— Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud

Furthermore, it ruled that any discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a violation of the Indian Constitution.

(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_India#)

Justice Chandrachud's statement about people wanting to live with dignity was the end result of activism spread over several decades. So yet again the concept of welfare of a set of people who are different from others.

Let's go back to animal welfare. 

Providing good animal welfare is sometimes defined by a list of positive conditions which should be provided to the animal. This approach is taken by the Five Freedoms and the three principles of Professor John Webster.

The Five Freedoms are:

• Freedom from thirst and hunger – by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour
• Freedom from discomfort – by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area
• Freedom from pain, injury, and disease – by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment
• Freedom to express most normal behavior – by providing sufficient space, proper facilities, and company of the animal's own kind
• Freedom from fear and distress – by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering

John Webster defines animal welfare by advocating three positive conditions: Living a natural life, being fit and healthy, and being happy.  And this would never be achieved through any welfare measures!

Effectively, welfarists are saying that caged hens are frustrated and their produce is reduced.  Hence keep them in your backyards. Activists counter this by advocating the complete renouncement of eggs, thus making it unnecessary to keep hens either in cages or in your backyard.

Economics will not allow either the welfarists or the activists to win.  

Take dairy, for example.  Dairy is a huge business in India, vigorously promoted by the Government.  Hard-core vegetarians are the main players in this business.  These are people who believe in cow vigilantism, are die-hard critics of meat-eaters and attribute all things religious to non-violence.  But speak to them about eschewing dairy, and these very same people become violent.  Some of them even accuse activists of hurting religious sentiments by asking people to avoid dairy so that the cruelty meted out these gentle creatures is reduced.

The reason for this two-faced behaviour?  $$$$$$!!

(Source: https://www.nddb.coop/information/stats)

From 2011 to 2019, the contribution from milk and dairy products to the total value of output from the livestock sector is 63 to 67 percent.  Now tell me what's important? Economics or ethics?

If you look at this from a welfare point of view, you may say, its ok to drink milk, but buy it from animals that are free to graze.   Take a look at this excerpt from a renowned science-related website:

"A new study by Newcastle University proves that organic farmers who let their cows graze as nature intended are producing better quality milk.

The Nafferton Ecological Farming Group study found that grazing cows on organic farms in the UK produce milk which contains significantly higher beneficial fatty acids, antioxidants and vitamins than their conventional ‘high input’ counterparts."

The jury is still out as far as I am concerned, abolitionism or welfarism.  Unlike other movements, we may find that the route to animal rights may well be via animal welfare!  

But don't take too long, the environment may not be able to wait till animal rights are achieved!