Nearly all vocal critics of animal rights/liberation insist that they are absolutely in favor of the “humane” treatment of animals. It’s simply the radical claims or agenda of animal liberation that they oppose. Assuming they’re arguing in good faith, then, it should to be possible to construct an agenda for improving the treatment of animals that those favoring humane treatment (as opposed to full-blown animal rights/liberation) can agree to.

On any reasonable definition of “humane,” then, I propose that those who are for the humane treatment of animals ought to favor, at a minimum, ending the following practices:

–intensive, factory-style farming of animals for meat, milk, and eggs

–fur trade

–experiments on animals for trivial purposes (e.g., cosmetics)

–painful experiments on animals for “pure” research not directly related to life-saving medical treatments for human beings

–rodeos and circuses

–“canned” trophy hunting

–hunting of endangered species

–destruction of animal habitat for trivial purposes (e.g., building a new shopping mall)

On the face of it, this looks like a PETA wish list! But all of the above sacrifice vital animal interests (e.g., interests in not suffering horribly) for the sake of comparatively trivial human interests (pleasure, convenience, curiosity, vanity, entertainment) that either don’t have a strong claim to being met or can easily be met by readily available substitutes. Any definition of “humane”–which Webster defines as “marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration”–that allows the routine sacrifice of vital animal interests for the sake of trivial human ones would seem to be a pretty empty one.