Think about this:
Joe the Bully is hitting a little child with a big stick. He then picks up a slightly smaller stick, which causes the child a bit less pain, and proceeds to continue to hit the child.
Is it better that he uses the smaller stick? Yes.
It’s always better to do “less bad” rather than “more bad.” But “less bad” and “more bad” are both still bad.
Should we have campaigns to urge that bullies like Joe use smaller sticks when brutalizing innocent children? No, of course not.
But that is exactly what animal groups are doing with their welfare reform campaigns promoting “cage-free” eggs, “crate-free” pork, etc.
Should we praise Joe because he’s taking a “baby step” toward not being a bully by hitting the child with the smaller stick? No, of course not.
But that is exactly what animal welfare groups are doing when they encourage people to eat “cage-free” eggs or “crate-free” pork, or when they give awards to animal exploiters.
Should we claim that those who criticize what Joe is doing in hitting the child with the smaller stick are not being “compassionate” toward Joe because he’s taking a “baby step” in the “right” direction? No, of course not.
But that is exactly what animal welfare supporters claim: if we say those who consume “happy” animal products are engaged in action that is morally wrong, we are not being “compassionate.”
Should we claim that those who criticize what Joe is doing in hitting the child with the smaller stick are “bashing” Joe? No, of course not.
But that is exactly what animal welfare supporters say. If an abolitionist says to a welfarist or a welfarist group that promoting “cage-free” eggs or “crate-free” pork (or other “happy” animal product) is not a good idea, they are accused of “bashing” the person or group.
The choice between the abolitionist approach and the welfare approach is crystal clear. You just have to decide where your moral compass points.
How do vegans go through life without eating cheese?
Like, cheese is so good!
By remembering that we cannot morally justify commodifying animals for their parts & secretions, merely to perpetuate our dietary habits. If animals matter morally, which they certainly do, we cannot abuse them for our own gain.
(& by eating things like this instead