Unsentimental Animal‑Welfare Case

Argue for animal protection on pragmatic, non‑sentimental grounds — welfare improves public health, supply‑chain stability, and social trust even when framed without invoking empathy. Use counterintuitive thought experiments (e.g., alien‑kidnap hypotheticals) to expose inconsistencies in popular moral reasoning and to enlist pragmatic coalitions (farmers, regulators, consumers) for reform. — Shifting the frame from sentimental moralizing to practical, coalition‑building arguments changes which actors support animal‑welfare policy and makes regulation politically tractable.