What if the laws treating animals as property were rooted in outdated moral assumptions? In this episode, attorney Mason Liddell of Animal Counsel explores normative ethics, the evolution of animal law, and how philosophy fuels advocacy. Learn how legal frameworks can shift with society’s morals and practical steps to drive change for animals.
What if the laws governing animals weren’t set in stone, but built on moral assumptions we can—and should—challenge?
In this thought-provoking episode of Puppies, Pandemics, and Public Health, host Dr. Johnny Lieberman welcomes Mason Liddell, founder of Animal Counsel. With a background in political and legal philosophy, Mason dives deep into the ethical foundations of animal law, explaining how normative ethics shapes everything from property rights to advocacy strategies.
From historical cases like Pierson v. Post to modern ag-gag laws and the tension between animal welfare and rights, Mason unpacks how societal morals evolve and influence legislation. He shares personal insights on transitioning to veganism, the power of random connections in activism, and practical ways to get involved. Whether you’re an animal lover, legal enthusiast, or public health advocate, this episode reveals how philosophy can fuel systemic change—and why starting small can lead to big impacts.
Top 3 Takeaways
About the Guest – Mason Liddell, JD
Mason Liddell is the founder of Animal Counsel, a nonprofit organization dedicated to using innovative legal theories to protect animals and the environment. With a background in political and legal philosophy from his undergraduate studies, Mason has been a committed vegan and animal advocate for years. His passion for normative ethics—exploring how we should live and interact with the world—drives his mission to create systemic change through the legal system. By restarting his law school’s Animal Legal Defense Fund chapter, Mason found his calling in animal law, focusing on turning philosophical principles into actionable legal reforms. He encourages grassroots activism, emphasizing the power of random outreach and community-building to advance animal welfare.
🔗 Learn more: https://www.animalcounsel.org
🌐 Website: https://www.animalcounsel.org
📸 Instagram: @animalcounsel
About the Show:
Puppies, Pandemics, and Public Health explores the intersection of animal welfare, public policy, and human health. Hosted by Dr. Johnny Lieberman, each episode invites changemakers, legal experts, and health advocates to shed light on what really impacts our communities—and what we can do about it.
About the Host:
Dr. Johnny Lieberman is a physician, public health advocate, and lifelong animal lover with a passion for connecting the dots between animal welfare, human behavior, and the systems that shape our lives. With a background in both medicine and public health policy, Johnny brings a unique lens to conversations about how our treatment of animals impacts human health, the environment, and social justice.
In Puppies, Pandemics, and Public Health, Johnny brings warmth, curiosity, and a dash of wit to tough conversations that matter. From exposing the realities of factory farming to uncovering the links between zoonotic diseases and our food systems, his goal is to empower listeners to be informed, compassionate, and engaged citizens—while still keeping it real (and sometimes bringing in puppies).
Whether he's discussing legislative loopholes or snuggling his rescue dog between recordings, Dr. Lieberman believes that creating a healthier world starts with how we treat its most vulnerable beings.
[00:00:00] I am here with Mason Liddell of Animal Council Mason, thank you so much for joining, the Puppies, pandemics and Public Health podcast today. Yeah, of course. thank you for having me. I'm excited about it. Yeah. nice to have you on here. So wanted to get right to it, initially here.
And before we move on to any of the details and any of the background, which is all important. I think that, at least for me, with my sort of political legal philosophy background, the thing I really wanna make sure that we hit is the driving philosophy.
studying philosophy in undergrad, being able to talk with. Animal activists about, normative [00:01:00] ethics. I think that those are important issues, even if a little bit nerdy.
I really like to get into the moral underpinnings of everything that justifies, I think, what I'm trying to do. Excellent. I think you hit on a couple of really great topics there, which should drive discussion. Certainly when we're talking about legal issues as it relates to animals in the law, and that relates directly to.
The decisions that we make as humans and for a lot of things, not just animal related. So yeah, I wanted to even tie it together. I pulled up your Animal Counsel website, and I'm just read a little bit from it here because I think that ties into it. Your mission, your vision at Animal Counsel is using the legal system to create genuine positive change to benefit animals and the environment around us.
As well as, advancing relatively new legal theories. I wanna hear a little bit more about that. I'm very interested in that and I think [00:02:00] our listeners might be as well. And then before we even get into that, you mentioned a couple of terms, which I think are important. can you tell us what normative ethics is?
Sure, yeah. Normative ethics is, a little bit jargony, but the basic idea is it's just how should you operate in the world, right? Like, what is the right thing to do? How do you live a good life? and for animal law in particular, but animal advocacy more generally. A lot of. philosophers have been the people in the background creating the groundwork I guess, that, animal lawyers are able to pick up on and try and turn into progress for animals, right?
the philosophers are using, the frameworks of normative ethics to explain how they think the world should be, how people should interact in the world. And then the lawyers are hopefully picking up on that and turning that. philosophical description into a legal reality. Yeah, no, that's [00:03:00] helpful.
And I think that affects a lot of us every single day without even knowing it. I think normative ethics drives our decisions. Sometimes. It's working in the background. You have maybe an example to share of that inaction as it affects the decisions we make and animals. Sure. I can think of a few of them.
I'll try to limit myself, but the law is built on a lot of frameworks. The law is built on a lot of assumptions. So when you talk about something like even private property, right? the idea that you can. Own a thing that's built on a lot of legal frameworks that come from way back, when the king owned everything that could be seen in England because America's getting so much of its law from England.
so when you go all the way back, that's a moral assumption that it is right for one person to be able to own everything that it is right for that person to be able to distribute it as they see fit. And then you can see [00:04:00] that. Come into the modern day. And I think that makes it a little bit clearer that it is a moral assumption because nowadays we just assume, that's the way things are.
You know, like that you can own individual things, you can own animals. Animals are property. You can slaughter animals for food like that. That's how it is. That's how it has always been. And therefore that's how it should be. But I think if you kinda look at that development over time, it makes it clear that these things can change as your morality.
Social moral standards are changing. So maybe another quick example. Would be this famous American property law case called, I think Pearson V Post. and the basic idea there was who owns a wild animal that's been hunted, right? there were these two people. One was hunting a fox for a really long time and wounded the fox, and then the other person actually kills the fox and takes the fox's corpse, thus quote unquote reducing it to mere possession.
and the idea there is that. [00:05:00] You have to determine who can own the body of this animal, and as you brought up, are technically considered property, although .
That's evolving and that might be something you're trying to work towards, with your nonprofit. It's a moving target. It changes, and the [00:07:00] concept of just because we've always done something this way, that doesn't mean that's the way we should always be doing it going forward. Is that correct?
I mean, that's how I see it. this was, going back a little bit, but I remember even in my high school philosophy class, somebody said to the teacher something along the lines of like, well, this is right because this is how we've always done it. And the teacher said. That doesn't follow at all.
Just because we do things doesn't make 'em right. And he said, well, we've always done it, and it's always worked. And the teacher said, all right, well that's at least an argument, right? Like, so long as this system is working, then we have a hook in for morality to say this is actually a good thing.
Just because we do a thing doesn't make it good. But if we do a thing and it works, I think you've got a foot in the door for That's a good argument. But touching on what you said at the beginning of the question. whether or not these things change objectively gets us into all sorts of philosophical rabbit holes for whether you believe in an objective moral ethics or [00:08:00] whether maybe you're a little bit more relativist.
, [00:09:00] and part of that might be the way the legal system is designed.
It's designed from my understanding to move slowly. checks and balances kind of, and that the side effect of that, or an adverse effect is that it can have a hard time catching up. And there's probably numerous examples from outside of animal law where that plays in with court cases and also from within and kind of,
There's numerous animal cases where the morality. plays into what's right. And I love the example you brought up just now about euthanasia and I think there's numerous other ones I was just learning recently about, there's numerous posts out there and lots on, using animals for clothing.
Right, There we have back. A long time ago before we had the technology we did to make clothing out of things other than killing an animal and using its skin, that was what had to be done to clothe humans. [00:10:00] and part of what I'm trying to teach is we've become so disconnected from our food, they might make different choices. And that's part of what I'm about here. I'm trying to get that message out and the technology [00:11:00] plays into it. There's so many other ways. Yeah. That you can produce food that's healthy and nutritious, that doesn't involve slaughtering of animals or castrating animals without anesthesia or keeping them.
Cooped up like this for their entire life, living in their own stool. not to mention the effects on the workers in all these facilities. trying to get some of that out there and then say, maybe I'll make a better choice. Maybe I'll buy a cotton product next time, or something that doesn't involve animals or, yeah, I'm trying to teach that.
and, as things tend to get in animal advocacy, they're [00:12:00] pretty grim. I was speaking with somebody recently at Colorado State University, Dr. Becky Naik. and she was explaining to me that essentially.
Like there is almost zero regulation that goes into these, which is difficult because a lot of people will think about things like, you know, the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, or they'll think about, the Animal Welfare Act and there's this. Really strong push of like, look, we have laws to deal with these things.
We have laws to deal with animal experimentation. We have laws to deal with slaughtering animals. and then you can kind of dig into the weeds and see maybe these laws don't do quite as much as you might think they do. Right? Things like the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, they frequently exempt the agriculture industry, especially the animal agriculture industry.
There's a whole framework I would recommend looking this up of agriculture exceptionalism, the idea that just [00:13:00] agriculture is exempt, right? it stays away from all these other regulations, and it does not have to be beholden to it because food's important. We need food. we have a powerful agriculture lobby.
Food is obviously tied in with quality of life, national security, there's a lot of really important issues that come down to food, so they just get an exemption from a lot of these laws. I want you to keep going, but What I find interesting is it applies to animal agriculture.
I don't know if an avocado farmer or a peanut farmer is exempted from these laws for pollution, and are they? so this is definitely not my number one area of expertise. My understanding though, is that generally yes. there are exceptions here And like
Specific types of, pollution will count, but other types of pollution won't count. But I think, a little bit less about the specifics and a little bit more about the general, I don't know the word food is important. The zeitgeist. Yeah. It's just like the, this general sense that food is important and therefore should be, so it's [00:14:00] okay to pollute more lenient.
Yeah. Yeah. Like the bar is lower and I think you can make a good faith argument for why it should be that way, right? Food is important, but you can look the other direction and say. Right. when we're looking at the Animal Welfare Act, for example, so that particularly governs animal experimentation, animal research, and you can make a very reasonable good faith argument that medications are important, the medical field is important, and that's all true.
But you can kind of cut the other direction and say, well, the Animal Welfare Act exempts. the animals used in 95% of research, right? It exempts rats, it exempts mice. I think it exempts birds. Although I'm not sure I remember what happened to the bird rule. I know that they were at least working on getting birds included.
Yeah, like, it just exempts an incredible number of animals. And then even the cases where it doesn't exempt those animals, it's still pretty lenient, right?. there are these laws that have great sounding names, so like, we're good. that's kind of it. we should be fine. And a lot of that, I think comes down to how secretive the animal agriculture industry can be and especially at the state level, how much they're really lobbying to keep their secrets, [00:18:00] right?
There's this whole universe of laws called ag gag laws. That, depending dramatically on how far the state is willing to go with it. Some ag gag laws will make it criminal and if a reporter or someone tries to take pictures of animals and farms and disseminate them, or some of them will restrict the ability of people to apply for jobs under false pretenses.
So you can't be an animal activist, say. that you desperately need a job, and you are just here because you want whatever job it is at this slaughterhouse or at this fur farm, and then they hire you, and then you document everything that goes wrong, and then you publish all those photos, right? this is a real problem for things like free of speech for things like freedom of the press.
Sounds like some of that might be infringing on the First Amendment right. You would think it might be. Yes. You would think that telling people they're not allowed to publish photos as journalists telling people that they're not allowed to get jobs even without lying. Right. And these are all [00:19:00] private industry.
These are private farms. And the idea that the government is stepping in because of this really aggressive lobbying, the idea that these state level governments are stepping in to say. Not only are we not going to regulate what's going on for these huge swaths of the time when you are taking care of, as it were, when you are taking care of these animals on your farm, we're also going to stop people who are trying to make sure that the public does know what's happening.
So ag gag laws Are a huge block that's been thrown up at least in order to perpetuate this ongoing idea that the animals on farms, on fur farms especially, are being taken care of. We have laws, we're protecting them, and nobody's allowed to put out pictures or images or reports of anything.
To the contrary, it's a little dystopian. Agreed. I learned about that. Not too long ago as well. And from my understanding is some of those laws have been challenged and overturned [00:20:00] on First Amendment grounds. I look at as coming in from an outsider who has not been studying law for a very long time.
if you said this wasn't an agriculture industry, but it was some other industry, and you took that out of the picture. I feel like, and you're trying to suppress someone from filming something to disseminate knowledge. That sounds an awful lot, like you're suppressing freedom of the speech and in this environment, again, it has been challenged on a couple of states, to my knowledge, successfully.
But there's still many laws on the books, which, another term I learned is a chilling effect that can have Yes. On people trying to go out and do it. So, no, I appreciate that there's this almost special status that this industry has and a protective nature. And you mentioned, again, the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, and I kinda share, I think what you feel and that it sounds like it's a good act, right?
It's the humane methods of slaughter, [00:21:00] I think. And, I'd be interested to hear what the public, who's watching this think, it sounds like that these animals, if there is a way to slaughter an animal humanely, that it's being done. It's being enforced that every animal is rendered insensible before it's actually killed, and that's happening and that the death is quick and painless.
And the people who have looked into this and undercover investigators under this law have shown that's not the case routinely, and there's a general lack of will to enforce it. And as you mentioned, over 90% of animals in the food industry are not even covered by the law, and that was despite an attempt to clarify that, you know, a poultry which make up a large percentage, they're not even covered by the law.
They can be slaughtered, you know, as the industry sees fit. Which brings me back to what you're saying in the fur industry, if there's no [00:22:00] regulations. For slaughtering of mink, for example, or animals that are turned into fur. What happens on these farms? how are these animals being slaughtered?
If there's no regulation for it, What's happening there? Oh, I mean, the honest answer, I don't have a lot of insight into that. Yeah. I've seen a few videos here or there. Truly ghastly stuff of, you know, living animals, being stripped of skin. But I can't speak to this at too deep a level. what I can say is I think if anyone, I don't think anyone can that's kind of sure the point, right?
We've got a little bit of regulation for what happens with cows and pigs, but. So we have some insight into it, at least what's supposed to be happening. And I think that makes the public feel better that these animals are being at least killed quickly. But correct me if I'm wrong, they're often not.
It's poorly enforced, it's poorly regulated, and I think that's one public misconception is that the [00:23:00] Humane Methods of Slaughter Act means that many farm animals are getting slaughtered humanely . The reality is probably the opposite, that they're suffering a grizzly death. And it's even worse if you're making a decision that you wanna wear fur still.
And the trend for that, I think is going down significantly as more awareness gets out there as to how these animals suffer to make the fur and How animals suffer to make wool clothing as well. I think they're outside of regulation as well. 'cause it's, correct me if I'm wrong, but these are industries that, if you have any stories to share on wool or fur, I'd love to hear him because I don't think the public knows the regulation is poor and
How the animals suffer to make those articles of clothing. Yeah, I think that this just connects really directly to what we were talking about with ag gag laws, right? This is. Something that you'll see every so often online, I [00:24:00] think, or at least something I see every so often are these, heartwarming videos of a sheep that has overgrown wool and gets sheared.
And then in the comments it's like inevitably filled with people being like, see, you're not even hurting the animal. You like this is okay. The sheep actually need to be sheared. And I think that there is at least a philosophical pushback you can make to that, at a couple different levels.
You know, one might be. Okay, but should we be using animals for these products that they make anyway, right? Like if we can produce a shirt with cotton, if we can produce a shirt with polyester, should we be keeping animals like this? Should we be raising animals in a way where they are completely dependent on humans for their comfort?
What happens when the animal escapes? Because then you wind up getting those sheep with, you know, just enormous barrels of wool on them. In some ways, these videos can be cute. They can be charming, but I think when you push a little bit further on them, there is a darkness. There really is a [00:25:00] darkness to like, we have created an entire species of creature.
Many of them, but at least with sheep specifically, we've created an entire species of creature that's dependent. On us for basic comfort, right? Like the bare minimum will not overheat win the elements they require us. And I think that you can kind of look at that in a few different ways. you can look at that and say like, great, so we're actually helping them.
I'm not terribly sympathetic to that line of argument, but I think that you can say that. And then I think the other direction you can go is to look inwards and say, Isn't there something a little bit dark, right? Like we do not need this anymore and we are still doing it.
We're subjecting animals to all of these requirements. We're subjecting animals to living in confinement. Like they, have to live in this unpleasant confinement on these fairly unregulated farms or else they're going to die, and frequently we're raising them to die anyway. that's [00:26:00] tough.
That's tough. And that's profoundly sad, I think. I agree. And it gets back to a little bit what you said in the beginning about technology. We don't have to do it. we have so many other choices and there is personal choice involved and there's money involved. My personal opinion is that most people will make a different decision, with all the options we have available now, and that's part of what I'm trying to do.
And many like me, I think, and. we're getting close to the end here, Mason. One of the other things I did wanna touch on, which I think is important to you, is activism. there's a few things that you can take away from this, right?
One is that. For all of the ag gag laws that are out there, and you're right, they're getting struck down whenever they're challenged. I think that there's like an a hundred percent success rate, but then states keep putting them back in because the incentive is so strong to put these ag gag laws up. So fight fire with fire, right?
If people are putting up ag gag laws, then. Yeah, put up at least attempts to ban fur sales, put up attempts to ban slaughterhouses. There was another initiative, there's one going on right now to try and [00:29:00] ban fo gras sales. Like you can try and do that. Put up laws that will benefit animals. And then part of what I've been doing through law school and what I want to do a, as a practicing attorney, is I want to be a part of the people that are doing that for a couple of reasons, right.
One is the obvious benefits to animals on that individual and on that societal level, on the individual scale, maybe if you are working in a case for trying to get an animal out of a zoo, right, in a roadside zoo, they're being poorly taken care of. Maybe if you can make a huge difference in that animal's life, you can get that animal out to a sanctuary that's really meaningful on that individual level.
But then you have these other slightly grander scale attempts to get animals. Into a better way of being more broadly, right? Like you can look at that as individual laws that are being passed with like prop 12 in California, which was trying to make sure that all of the meat products, or at least the pork products being imported [00:30:00] into California, those.
Pigs were being raised to a certain standard of care. So California, an enormous market of 40 million people And then for me personally, I think that there are a lot of benefits, right. For one thing, this is just a great community. Like the animal activists that I have met, at least in animal law, have been wonderful. Like they've just been great people And I truly don't think I could have made it through law school without them. So there's community and I really appreciate that community on the individual level. And then I think that you can bring these things together, right? I feel better about my job and about the work that I'm doing because I'm passionate about it, because there's community and because it's doing something good in the world.
And [00:31:00] I think that makes things a lot easier. this is a dark field. There are bad things that are happening to animals on an industrial level, but if you can feel good about the work that you're doing and if you can bring that fire with you every time you start to work on something. That makes the job a lot easier.
Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that.
. 'cause there are resources, right? You don't have to fight some fight alone. I would highly recommend that you just reach out to people. Almost at random, and you say, hello, I am interested in plugging into whatever system you have here.
'cause I bet you that there are smart activists who already know what they're doing, who already have systems in place in [00:35:00] your area, and you can work with them. And if you don't find those people, then honestly I just say, start a chapter of something. Start your own club. Send a few emails to people that feel similarly.
Post on nextdoor pages, post on Facebook pages, post on your local. Like subreddit, whatever it is, just try and get some people together because a lot of this just happens through random connections and you can do your best to make it work, but don't think you're gonna be able to sit there and out plan fate and happenstance.
Just make the best of whatever comes to you and put yourself out there. No, thank you Mason. 5 as transparency is becoming more important and dissemination of information is much easier than it was certainly 20, 30 years ago, Even five or 10. Yeah. So if something you found was interesting, you wanna explore more, please do. That's in part how I got on this pathway.
And we talked a bit about ethics in the beginning, and I'll just conclude with something which I realized along the way in helping me guide my decisions. If you're confident on what your ethics are, decision [00:37:00] making becomes much easier. last time I was looking for a new pet. I had it ingrained in me. I love golden retrievers. I love golden retrievers. Their nature, the way they look, their soft for the way they smile. I was struggling with finding a new dog.
so I struggle with, am I gonna get another a golden retriever or am I gonna rescue a dog? And I struggled with that for a while till I realized what my values are. And so I wound up rescuing a dog from a shelter. And so that's my personal decision.
I'm not trying to tell you what to do, but that's a one example for me personally. That changed me going forward. I'm always gonna rescue a dog. Maybe it'll be a golden retriever. Most likely not. and perhaps you'll find something in your life [00:39:00] as you do your own research, listen to this and your values may come up with something.
go head to head against something. But when you know your values, you know what's important. I think decision making gets easier. Yeah. So I will end with that. Mason, thank you so much for sharing your time today. I value having you on here as a guest sharing your knowledge and your opinions. And, again, thank you so much for your time.
He's at Animal Council. Thank you so much, Johnny. It's been great. Thanks, Mason. I.