Archive for month: November, 2010

Dear Colleagues:

Peter Singer recently posted the following Tweet in response to the receipt by a UCLA vivisector of razor blades allegedly infected with contaminated blood:

Ugh…how will this help the animals? All it does is give the animal movement the worst possible image. http://tinyurl.com/27xmlkr

I agree with Singer that violence like this provides a negative image of the animal movement and I think the problem is more complicated than just public image. Putting aside any general moral problem with violence, the UCLA antic simply makes no sense. Sure, the UCLA vivisector is unjustifiably exploiting animals. But so is anyone who uses animals, including those who consume animal products. There is really no principled way to distinguish those who engage in vivisection and those who consume any meat, dairy, or other animal products, including “happy” ones. Are those who promote violence willing to regard their grandparents, who cooked a turkey for Thanksgiving, as a proper target of violence? Are they willing to treat their family members or friends who eat ice cream or drink milk or consume any animal products, as “animal-abusing scum” who are the legitimate targets of violence? No, of course not.

The only way the problem of animal exploitation will be solved is through shifting the paradigm away from property and toward personhood, and that is not going to happen—we will never find our moral compass here—as long as we consume animal products. It certainly is never going to happen as the result of violence. If social thinking and public demand for animal use remains the same, nothing will ever change. If you close ten slaughterhouses today and demand remains the same, ten more will open tomorrow or ten existing ones will expand production capacity. For more on this topic, see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and listen to my Commentary on the subject. I also discuss this topic in my new book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, which was published in November 2010 by Columbia University Press.

So although Singer and I disagree concerning just about every other issue in animal ethics, I am glad that we agree on the important issue of violence in animal advocacy. I hope sincerely that Singer is not the subject of threats and defamatory attacks such as those aimed at me because I have been vocal in my condemnation of violence.

The animal rights movement makes sense only as a movement of peace and nonviolence. Gandhi said:

We must become the change we want to see in the world.

If we want to see a world in which there is no violence against the most vulnerable, we must ourselves become non-violent and present our views in a non-violent way. Non-violence begins with our own veganism and our use of creative, non-violent ways to educate others about veganism.

If you are not vegan, go vegan. It’s easy; it’s better for your health and for the planet. But, most important, it’s the morally right thing to do. Veganism is nonviolence in action.

If you are vegan, then spend as much time as you are able to engaged in creative, non-violent vegan education.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione

Dear Colleagues:

For many years, I have been making the argument that if animal exploitation cannot be morally justified (and I do not think it can be), then we ought, as an individual matter, to stop our direct participation in animal exploitation by going vegan and we ought, as a social matter, to advocate the abolition of, and not the regulation of, animal exploitation. I have argued, for example, that, having determined that pedophilia is morally wrong, we would not, even in the face of widespread child molestation in our society, advocate for “humane” pedophilia. Similarly, we should not advocate for “humane” animal exploitation. If animal exploitation is morally unjustifiable, we ought to say that and we ought to say that clearly. (I have also argued that as a practical matter, animal welfare reform does not work and is actually counterproductive.)

So it was with considerable interest that I read about the public reaction to Amazon.com’s advertisement of an e-book, “The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover’s Code of Conduct,” which is described by its author as an “attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certian [sic] rules for these adults to follow.” CNN reports:

An e-book for sale on Amazon.com that appears to defend pedophilia has sparked hundreds of angry user comments and threats to boycott the online retailer unless it pulls the title.

Nearly 1,700 users who had commented on the title as of 9:40 p.m. ET deplored its publication and vowed to boycott Amazon until it removes the self-published title from the site. At least two Facebook pages have been set up dedicated to boycotting Amazon because of the book.

Amazon.com has apparently stopped selling the book in light of the public outrage.

The reaction to this book proves my point: even though we all know that pedophilia is rampant in society, and even though promoting “humane” pedophilia might lead to the reduction of suffering of children who are victimized in this way, no one who thinks that pedophilia is morally wrong thinks that we ought to advocate for “humane” or “compassionate” pedophilia.

Similarly, those who believe that animal exploitation is morally wrong ought not to be campaigning for “happy” or “compassionate” exploitation or promoting “happy” meat labels. The message should be clear: we cannot justify animal use, however “humane.” The reality, of course, is that the most “humane” animal use still involves what would be considered torture were humans involved. But no animal use, however “humane” or “compassionate” can be justified, just as no pedophilia, however “humane” or “compassionate” can be justified.

Until animal advocates react with as much outrage to the promotion of “happy” exploitation as we all react to the promotion of “happy” pedophilia, there will be no real animal rights movement.

If you are not vegan, go vegan. It is very easy, better for your health and for the planet. And, most important, it’s the morally right and just thing to do.

If you are vegan, then educate others in a creative, nonviolent way.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione