[Animal welfare policy between democracy and lobbyism]

The egalitarian pathocentrism postulates, that all sentient beings should have the same moral regard. This opinion is the backbone of a radical animal welfare policy which logically cannot accept violence against man, also. Painful and very stressing experiments could only be justified with freely and rationally agreeing persons. Animal ethics based upon self-interests is superior to altruistic considerations. The latter are addressed to "saints and heroes" and cannot be a common ideal. But the good moral reasons for respecting the self-worth and the individual lifeplan of animals always have to be called to attention by strong animal welfare organizations. Dangerous in the argumentation is the trichotomy: thing-animal-man. It leads to equalize amoebas with elephants. From the moral point of view only the difference between sentient and insentient beings is relevant, even if it is sometimes difficult to draw the line. In a democracy animal welfare has to articulate itself as a lobby, and must not loose sight of the welfare of animals aside from its own interests. Radical animal welfare activists not resorting to violence would represent animal welfare policy under different coalitions.