The last decade has seen an explosion of meta-philosophical work on ’conceptual engineering’. Beyond simple analysis of concepts, conceptual engineering allows for evaluation and improvement of concepts according to the purposes to which they will be used. This paper sketches a pluralist account of conceptual engineering and provides a distinction between two different and often conflicting kinds of conceptual engineering: naturalist conceptual engineering (NCE) and moral conceptual engineering (MCE), distinguished not by their methods, but by their roles, functions, and purposes. Using the example of animal welfare, we demonstrate the application of both MCE and NCE and show how the different contexts in which a concept is used can create conflicting demands but also how concordance between these demands can strengthen a concept
