Until the cages are empty, the welfare advocate works to widen the door. The rights advocate works to abolish the lock. And for the animal, both efforts cannot come soon enough. Whether you choose to support the incremental improvement of welfare standards or the abolitionist mission of rights, the most critical step is the same: awareness. The suffering of an animal hidden behind a farm door or a laboratory wall requires your attention. Look closer. The animal you save may not have a voice, but it is, without question, listening.

While both movements seek to reduce animal suffering, their goals, methods, and moral compasses diverge significantly. One seeks to improve the condition of the animal’s life; the other seeks to end the property status of the animal entirely. To engage in the conversation about our duties toward other species, one must first understand the line between welfare and rights. What is Animal Welfare? Animal welfare is a science-based and pragmatic position. It accepts the premise that humans use animals for food, clothing, research, entertainment, and companionship, but argues that we have a moral obligation to prevent unnecessary suffering. The core philosophy of welfare is simple: It is acceptable to use animals, but not to abuse them.

Perhaps the strongest argument for the future lies in integration. As Steven M. Wise, founder of the Nonhuman Rights Project, argues: We can pursue welfare reforms today to stop the bleeding, while simultaneously building the legal precedents to one day recognize the autonomy of great apes, elephants, dolphins, and parrots.