Animal Welfare vs. Animal Rights: Reform or Abolition?
In the U.S., the debate over the treatment of animals often centers around one fundamental ethical question: Should animals be regarded only as beings whose suffering should be minimized, or as individuals with inherent rights that protect them from human use altogether? The legal lines are often blurred in this matter. Animal welfare is a scientific or practical approach to regulating the use of animals and focusing on improving its conditions. Animal rights is about prohibiting the use of animals by humans and takes a more ethical approach. Although the two terms, welfare and rights, are sometimes used interchangeably, they represent distinctly different legal theories. Animal welfare focuses on humane treatment, better living conditions, and regulated practices, whereas animal rights refuse to use animals as resources completely. Understanding the distinction between the two helps explain the powers and limitations of U.S. law when it comes to the protection of animals.
The current animal welfare framework, as outlined in the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (AWA), assumes that humans are able to own, use, or benefit from animals. [1] This law, however, also imposes standards to ensure that animals are being treated in a humane manner. It rules over the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and commerce. The AWA sets minimum standards, enforced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, for housing, feeding, and veterinary care. The AWA operates by regulating the conditions under which animals live and work, rather than granting them independent legal status. [2] However, the act excludes many animals, including, but not limited to, farm animals used for food production, many cold-blooded species. The act only protects certain warm-blooded species such as dogs and cats, which results in a majority of animals, such as fish, reptiles, or birds, lying outside the scope of federal welfare regulation. [3]
Within the model of welfare under the AWA, anti-cruelty laws operate at the state level. This means that only acts of mistreatment, such as abuse, neglect, and abandonment, are criminalized. This legal structure is grounded in the classification of animals as property. [4] Welfare laws place limits on how owners may use an animal, in the same way as property law governs how a person may use their belongings. For example, according to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 272, Section 77, it is illegal to “overdrive, overload, torture, torment, deprive of necessary sustenance, cruelly beat, mutilate or kill an animal.” [5] However, the statute does not prevent the commercial use of animals.Therefore, the law regulates the treatment of animals, while still validating their status as property rather than as individuals with rights.
In contrast, the animal rights framework, which has not yet been established by law, argues that animals possess certain inherent interests that should be recognized in law. This should include rights such as being able to live free from human exploitation and ownership. Those in favor of this framework argue that animals should not be viewed merely as property but rather as individuals entitled to legal protections.
The Nonhuman Rights Project, for example, has filed habeas corpus petitions on behalf of chimpanzees and elephants, arguing that they are autonomous beings entitled to limited legal personhood. This means that they believe animals should only be allowed to have specific human rights such as freedom from unlawful confinement. [6] While courts have so far declined to extend such rights, these cases have sparked broader conversations about whether traditional property classifications adequately reflect modern understandings of animal cognition and sentience. [7]
Internationally, some jurisdictions have taken small steps toward animal rights recognition. In 2022, Spain’s legal code was amended to recognize animals as “sentient beings” rather than objects. In India, several court rulings have declared animals to be legal entities with specific rights. [8][9] Sentience means the capacity to feel subjective experiences such as pain or fear. The distinction between legal entities and sentient beings is that legal entities exist because the law creates them. By recognizing sentience for animals, these legal systems are able to grant moral and legal protections, such as stronger anti-cruelty laws and improved welfare standards. These developments remain largely symbolic, but they signal a growing willingness in the international community to reconsider the legal boundaries between humans and nonhumans.
In practice, most contemporary animal protection efforts in the United States operate within a welfare framework but are influenced by rights-based ideals. Although the law still classifies animals as property, there are greater efforts to reform and increasingly consider the value and suffering of animals. Courts have also begun to use language that recognizes animals as sentient beings capable of experiencing harm, while still maintaining their property status. [10] This blending of language suggests a slow evolution in how the law conceptualizes animals.
As the field of animal law continues to expand, the tension between animal welfare and rights frameworks remains central, but currently, according to American law, it is suggested that welfare would seem to be the more viable path legally. Courts have consistently denied recognizing animals as legal individuals with constitutional protections, thus reaffirming their status as property. Simultaneously, state legislatures and voters have begun adopting welfare reforms and stronger measures against cruelty. This suggests that although rights-based arguments are beginning to have influence on how animals are treated, legal change is happening quite slowly through small changes in welfare rather than rights.
Sources
Animal Welfare Act of 1966, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131–2159 (2022).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare Regulations (2020).
Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2132(g).
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 77 (2023).
Ibid.
Nonhuman Rts. Project, Inc. ex rel. Tommy v. Lavery, 31 N.Y.3d 1054 (2018).
Steven M. Wise, Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books, 2000).
Ley 17/2021, de 15 de diciembre, sobre el régimen jurídico de los animales, B.O.E. 313 (2021) (Spain).
Animal Welfare Bd. of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 S.C.C. 547 (India).
Justice v. Vercher, No. 18CV17601, 2020 WL 6535853 (Or. Cir. Ct. Sept. 25, 2020).