This is Welfarism

A discussion of the RSPCA’s policy on chick culling and the problem with welfarism.

The contradictory and often confusing world of animal welfare frequently throws up some mind-boggling hypocrisy, but seldom are the problems with animal welfarism so clearly represented as in this tweet from the RSPCA this week:

This surprised a lot of people who are unfamiliar with the RSPCA’s track record with these sorts of statements. Organisations like the RSPCA are often assumed to act in the interests of all animals; this is unfortunately very far from the truth. This statement makes far more sense in the context of what it is that animal welfarists actually believe, which is that it is perfectly acceptable to exploit and kill animals, so long as it is done “humanely,” which is usually a very vaguely defined term, if it is defined at all. It is certainly hard to guess at what RSPCA themselves mean when they use the word, since if the standard definition of “avoiding unnecessary cruelty” were to apply, gassing or shredding live chicks surely would not be fit be defined as humane under that or any other reasonable definition of the word.

The truth is that since animal products are completely unnecessary for the vast majority of us, then it logically follows that any cruelty inflicted to obtain them is also unnecessary. It can be reasonably argued that for economic reasons chick culling is necessary to obtain eggs, but obtaining eggs is in itself not necessary, since we have no need for them whatsoever in order to maintain a healthy diet. On what basis then, can the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals find it perfectly acceptable to gas or grind up live one day old chicks? The idea that you can meaningfully advocate for the interests of animals while simultaneously paying for them to be exploited and killed is absurd, and so it inevitably leads to absurdities, such as statements like the one in this tweet.

This is not an isolated case. You can find RSPCA approved sausages, bacon, beef, they even serve meat at their own fundraisers. You would be hard pressed to find a more perfect example of speciesism than hosting events centred on the barbecuing of one kind of animal in order to raise money to save another. The vastly different ways animals are valued by welfarist organisations and society at large is based on little more than our arbitrary designation of them as either “pet” or “food.” There is nothing inherent about pigs which makes their lives worth less than dogs, and nothing particularly unique about dogs which makes them deserving of our affection and the right to life. The fact that we historically raised and bred some animals specifically for food, some to work and some as pets should have no relevant whatsoever to how valuable their lives are, and it is incredibly arrogant for any human to assume that the way we have decided to use animals makes them more or less worthy of life.

If someone were grinding up live puppies because we want to eat their parents, then we can be reasonably sure that RSPCA would have something to say about it other than demanding that it be done “humanely.”  If the issue is solely that of legality, that it is okay to do it to chickens because it is legal and not okay to do to dogs or cats because it is illegal, then the RSPCA and other similar organisations do not exist to oppose cruelty, since some cruelty is clearly permissible, what they really oppose is illegality. Would this mean that  if dog meat became legal in the UK, the RSPCA would be campaigning for humane dog slaughter, rather than no dog slaughter at all? Most of us will find that hard to believe.

None of these criticisms are in any way meant to devalue the work that RSPCA workers and inspectors do, there are many dedicated people who work for RSPCA in difficult and emotionally draining conditions, doing a job that few others could bring themselves to do. It is the ideology of the organisation itself and many others like it which is at fault, the agenda which encourages the public to care about some animals while disavowing the suffering of so many others. The question RSPCA and indeed the rest of us need to ask ourselves, is how much suffering is acceptable for the sake of our pleasure. If we are at a point where an animal welfare organisation will support the unnecessary culling of male chicks, who aren’t even themselves used for food, how much meaning can animal welfare really have?

No matter how small the farm or how well-meaning the farmer, all farmed animals are viewed and treated as mere commodities rather than sentient beings with their own interests. So long as profit is involved, an animal’s interests and welfare will always be less important than the money made from their flesh and secretions. In our hearts we already know this; it is why westerners campaign for the abolition of eating dogs rather than advocating for more “humane” dog slaughter. The RSPCA is not the worst example, but one among many organisations who not only fail vulnerable animals, but actively betray them by working with the industries that profit from their exploitation and death. In fact, they even stamp their seal of approval on the final product. The fact that even the societies founded to prevent cruelty to animals will openly accept inexplicably cruel practices makes it clear that so long as you are refusing an animal their rights, then their welfare can never be taken seriously.

Featured Image: Wildlifearticles.co.uk

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.