ANIMAL WELFARE
Animals feel pain, just as we do. Why, then, is their welfare- and their suffering- little more than an afterthought in the eyes of the law?
There are global conflict indicators, and we're in a state of economic crisis- so AJ Revolution doesn’t focus exclusively on animal rights campaigns. But the beauty of a utilitarian constitution is that by its very nature, animal suffering would be alleviated significantly across-the-board. Every sentient being in a utilitarian jurisdiction would have at least some basic quality of life, and you would be punished severely for hurting them unnecessarily under a utilitarian system (any ‘sentient being’ would have rights under said).
Enshrining animal rights in constitutional law would achieve far more for animal welfare over the long-term than occasional awareness campaigns, and the piecemeal legislation we have to protect them currently. For example, a utilitarian legal movement would mean:
-
Animal welfare would be incorporated into various policing powers; giving officers, among other things, a clear power of entry, seizure and arrest in time-critical welfare scenarios.
-
Exploitative racing/ other needless competitive practices would be illegalised.
-
Many battery farming techniques wouldn’t be permitted.
-
Religious slaughter methods would be illegalised. Some involve slicing the animal’s throat open while they’re still alive. We’re not bargaining here with ‘stunning’ etc: if you’re going to kill an animal for food, you do it humanely and in a way that’s instant, and makes them feel no pain.
-
You would need a legal entitlement to interact with animals regularly, including pets and livestock (given to anyone automatically, but removed at the slightest abuse). This is far more robust and further-reaching than what’s offered by things like the disqualification orders in the Animal Welfare Act 2006; it would fundamentally cut off animal abusers from being alone with animals in any capacity ever again, and would give the police both a power and an obligation to stop and verify entitlements on a regular basis with anyone seen with animals.
-
The list goes on: any activity that causes unnecessary suffering to any creature that can feel pain would be unconstitutional, and illegal, and this would be getting taught to our children from a young age and trained in various educational/ work settings.
---
Sentience- a preview section from my book.
When we acknowledge that there are various other creatures that walk the Earth besides us that can feel, we acknowledge that there are organisms besides us that are sentient. If an organism has a network of nociceptors and a brain, then it definitely feels pain (this covers most animals. Some organisms don’t have nociceptors, but do have equivalent systems, and do directly respond to/ avoid harmful stimuli). Simply ask yourself: what do we do when something hurts? We flinch, we cry out, we try to move away.
Animals manifest a range of obvious responses to pain that are both behavioural and physiological. For example, when cattle are exposed to pain, they exhibit clear signs of distress: vocalisations, attempts to escape, and physical reactions such as increased heart rates and cortisol levels (a stress hormone). Similarly, pigs show avoidance behaviours and vocal protests when experiencing painful slaughterhouse procedures. Chickens, when subjected to painful farming procedures like debeaking, will exhibit behaviours indicative of distress and pain, such as head-shaking, reduced feeding, and vocalisations. Or consider household pets like dogs. When a dog's paw is accidentally stepped on, it yelps, pulls away, and might even lick its paw afterward, demonstrating both an immediate and a soothing response after. Cats, too, show signs of distress when injured; they might withdraw, become less active, or vocalise their pain through meowing or hissing. Fish, when hooked or cooked alive during practices like ‘speed cooking’, will thrash and try to escape. Even lobsters and crabs, again often boiled alive in various culinary practices the world over, exhibit defensive behaviours and increased rubbing of wounded areas when injured, indicating their experience of pain.
Something I’d hope we can unanimously agree on is this: if we were to reduce morality down to its most basic principle, one that even a child could understand, it’d likely be that hurting something that feels pain, when you don’t need to, is bad.
The ‘need’ to hurt something has to be a fairly high threshold, or the sickos amongst us would just go around claiming any ‘necessity’ under the sun to justify beating other people and animals black and blue. The following might amount to examples of genuine, ethical necessity for harm:
-
Self-defence. If, for example, a raging bull was charging you, or a bear opening its maw around your head, you would be totally justified in fighting back for the sake of mere survival.
-
Food (if necessary). Proteins are vitally important for human health and wellbeing. Although the general consensus from a health and animal welfare perspective is that we should minimise meat consumption, some people simply cannot properly digest plant proteins. For instance, individuals with certain digestive disorders, such as Crohn's disease, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), or food intolerances (e.g., to soy or gluten), might not be able to obtain sufficient protein to stay fit and healthy from a plant-based diet.
Other genuine necessities might include:
-
Pest Control. Sometimes, it is necessary to control the population of certain animals to prevent them from causing significant damage. For example, managing the population of feral hogs, known for devastating crops and ecosystems, is crucial to protect agricultural lands and native wildlife habitats.
-
Ensuring Biodiversity. In certain circumstances, it might be necessary to intervene in natural processes to preserve biodiversity and protect important species. This can include managing the population of invasive species like Burmese pythons in the Florida Everglades; which now pose a serious threat to native wildlife populations after being introduced to the area exogenously through the pet trade.
---
While I don’t necessarily believe that the human consumption of meat needs to be totally abolished, the welfare of livestock needs to be absolutely paramount, not just left as an afterthought, and definitely not neglected entirely. This could only happen if the meat industry were to be:
-
reduced in scale, and
-
have more policing/ auditing resources poured into it.
… and additionally, either:
-
Humanity adopts more sustainable population sizes, so it’s not pressurising farmers to prioritise quantity over quality of care to hit quotas, and/or-
-
It adopts a far more plant-based diet.
For my full thoughts on sentience and animal abuse, and full proposals for animal welfare reforms in the UK and beyond, please read my book- Absolute Justice – A Plan to Save the World.
---
Below is our animal abuse awareness video. It contains graphic depictions of animal abuse that may be distressing to some viewers. Viewer discretion is advised.