The state protects the life and wellbeing of animals due to the special responsibility of mankind with respect to animals as their fellows.
-- Austria Constitution [civil law also notes animals are not "things"]
In the late 1990s, I became a vegetarian. This was really a desire for consistency, since I generally have a broad understanding of equality and respect for life overall. A consistent path of ahimsa, non-violence, which is suggested by Compassion: The Ultimate Ethic by Victoria Moran. [An excellent little book for beginners.] Peter Singer, the controversial philosopher (who also has a book out on the consistency of Bush's ethics), supports a utilitarian path asking us to "act in such a way as to maximize the expected satisfaction of interests in the world, equally considered." And, to the degree it matters -- feeling of pain, glory of life and existence, responsibility to honor things of wonder etc. -- animals deserve at least some degree of equal consideration. This avoids complicated issues where Singer and others bring up severely retarded individuals etc., who might not have the mental acuity of certain non-human animals.
I need not totally resist "speciesism," prejudicially favoring my own species, to take such a stance. One also needs not to consider certain animals as persons, "a kind of being defined by certain psychological traits or capacities: beings with particular complex forms of consciousness, such as self-awareness over time, rationality, and sociability."* Of course, many in some form do ... many surely think of their pets/companion animals as "persons," not things. This is a central thing that makes the animal welfare/rights (a somewhat philosophical split) possible. People have always in some fashion cared about the well being of animals. They might make some arbitrary choices, but a basic policy of caring about animal welfare harkens back to biblical times, suggesting why the Massachusetts Bay Colony, influenced by that source, spoke about how the people "ought" not mistreat them back in the 17th Century.
In the book cited in the note, a participant offered various guidelines for animal advocacy, rules that apply overall: be respectful, be a people person, dress for success, be optimistic, don't let personal purity harm effective advocacy (perfect enemy good), don't minimalize (make it a personal issue, not one with broad responsibilities), prepare/practice, and do not neglect the little things. Another adds some more, including aiming for the possible, do not demonize those you are trying to target, aim for possible goals, and so forth. Use of horrible testing for trivial reasons such as cosmetics have been replaced. A push for spaying and neutering and even no kill shelters have had some major success. And, certain animal alternatives -- including in popular food stores like Whole Foods and Trader Joe's -- has become popular. I myself have seen a lot more soy milk containers in the trash in recent years.
[As to the personal issue thing. I do not really make a big issue of my vegetaranism though it is of course an issue when I eat with others, including family dinners where my needs must be taken into account -- such as at Thanksgiving, when gravy without turkey is offered. On a core level, it is a personal conscience matter, a way for me to live a moral life in my own fashion. So, though I do not know how much good it does overall for a small group to choose this path, it remains a personal benefit. It is like someone following their religious tenets, obtaining personal well being, even if others around them are not affected. BTW, especially since I am not a vegan, the "perfect" thing also needs to be underlined. None of us are or can be perfect, but most of us can be more good.]
In other words, animal welfare is not an all or nothing thing. I personally am a vegetarian, but there are any number of other things meat eaters can do to promote the interests of animals. For instance, the care of animals raised for food is generally atrocious. And, some are quite willing to admit veal is not worth the process behind its creation, nor other delicacies where animals are forced fed for our palates. Some important reforms here and abroad in the last few years regulated treatment of animals on the farm, some (including in the quiet important fast food market) by voluntary action. Temple Grandin, who is autistic, has written on the value of taking the animals' interests into consideration in animal husbandry, not just for their own interests, but because it promotes efficiency.**
Respect for life, nature, and beings who feel pain and are subjects of life with interests. Utilitarianism is a good approach, but there is no need to use one philosophy ... in fact, I find it useful to use a kitchen sink approach, anything that works ... life tends to work that way. The goal is what is important. The current policy all too often does not just harm "animals," but humans as well. Factory farming, for instance, causes many negative effects on our society, as shown by Fast Food Nation and other sources. [Let's say one suggests plants feel pain ... the idea is to limit their pain. Well, mass production of "meat" requires a wasteful process where loads more of creatures suffer. Again, there are many ways to attack the problem.] Not caring for pets, leading to stray problems (with disease and further nuisance) cause negative effects on us. And so on.
But, though I think in the end it does positive good, animal welfare is not painless. Yes, funds need to be spent, efforts taken, and choices made. So, yes, if you like fur, the feel of stuff will have to be avoided in exchange for the prevention of needless suffering and destruction of animals. Ditto those who like certain kinds of food -- let's limit ourselves to things like veal or foie gras, but the problem is clearly broader. Taste, however, is not an equitable tradeoff for animal suffering. Certain people enjoy torturing animals in various respects, but we do not find that a fair trade-off. Are we to ignore this theme, consistency again, when the process is done in the promotion of a "circus?" I think not.
The Bible speaks of humans having "dominion" over creation. It also speaks of us being created in the "image and likeness" of our creator. Under this view, God surely has the supreme dominion, control, over the entire universe. But, this does not mean God simply uses the universe for [insert proper pronoun] arbitrary ends. It requires a certain amount of care and responsibility, thus Jesus points to the birds, noting how God takes care of them. We too have a responsibility to do the same, if we are to aim for the "goodness" necessary for a truly happy existence.
A secular path ("nature or nature’s god") could follow a similar philosophy. Either way, much more needs to be done.
---
* David DeGrazia, essay in In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave, edited by Peter Singer. In my constitutional opus, I suggest that many animals -- surely mammals, probably all vertebrae and perhaps beyond -- are "persons" in some fashion so that the state can secure their "rights" (interests owed against others) in ways that might burden the interests of human persons (thus, kosher rules are not to be cruel to animals). DeGrazia uses "persons" in a narrower sense, involving higher sentience such as use of language, social relations, and tool use. Thus, a great ape would be a "person," though animals overall warrant some security.
** She has written various books and her efforts were put in broader context in David Barboza's article "Animal Welfare's Unexpected Allies," New York Times, June 25, 2003. As the article quotes, "We want to know: How important is social contact and space? What do they like and need?" One might say this is like asking workers what they need, caring about their interests to promote productivity. This is not as remarkable as current policy sometimes seems to imply.