Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach Commentary

Commentary #24: Vegan Advocacy in the U.K.

Gary L. Francione — Wed, 11 May 2011 11:00:22 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

In this Commentary, I talk with Rob Johnson, an abolitionist vegan in the United Kingdom. While a student at the University of Aberdeen, Rob started Grampian Animal Rights Advocates, which, as Rob explains, started as a new welfarist group. Rob has formed Vegan U.K., a grassroots organization designed to provide support and information about veganism and abolition for individuals and other grassroots groups. Rob also writes a blog, Animal Rights U.K.

It is my hope that with Commentaries like this one and the ones that I did with Jeff Perz and Renata Peters and with Leila Fusfeld of the Peace Advocacy Network will give you ideas about the wide range of things that can be done to promote the view that animals are not resources and that their membership in the moral community means that we cannot eat, wear, or use them.

**********

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. If you are vegan, educate everyone you can about veganism.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
©2011 Gary L. Francione

Commentary #23: A Discussion on Abolition vs. Regulation with Robert Garner

Gary L. Francione — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 12:00:24 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

My most recent book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, involves a debate between me and Professor Robert Garner of the University of Leicester.

In this Commentary, Professor Garner and I discuss our book. Garner’s position, although a form of what I call “new welfarism,” is different from that of Singer and most others. To start with, Garner is not an act utilitarian, as is Singer. Like Singer (and Regan), Garner does not recognize that animal life has moral value equal to human life but he thinks that an animal’s interest in not suffering should be protected with a “right.” He equivocates about whether this right is a right not to suffer “unacceptably,” in which case his position collapses into a form of welfare (similar to what I have discussed in my 1995 book, Animals, Property, and the Law, as the new welfarist “right to humane treatment”), or whether the right not to suffer is an absolute right, in which case Robert’s position would rule out all animal use because, as I point out in our book, all use involves some form of suffering, distress, etc. As I also discuss in our book, if Garner understands this right in an absolute sense, then there are theoretical problems understanding the derivation of any such right and Garner’s promotion of welfarist reform is both theoretically and practically inconsistent with any such right.

In our discussion here, we focus on the following questions that I prepared:

1. In our book, you state that animals have a right not to suffer “unacceptably.” How do you determine what levels of suffering are “acceptable”?

2. Although you think that factory-farming cannot be morally justified, if animals could be raised in a pleasant way with minimal suffering and killed in a relatively painless way for food, or if animals could be used in experiments with minimal suffering and significant benefits for humans, you could not object, could you?

Let’s take a very clear example: I have a cow who lives in the back garden. I treat her very well. I shoot her (one bullet; instantaneous death) and kill her and eat her. Have I done anything morally wrong?

3. In our book, you state: “I am accepting the view that, all things being equal, nonhuman animal life (of most nonhuman species at least) is of less moral value than human life.” p. 187 Why do you take this position?

4. A central point of disagreement between us is that you believe that regulationist groups, such as the RSPCA, CIWF, PETA, HSUS are seeking and achieving “worthwhile” wins. Do you believe that any of these “wins” does much more than make animal use more economically efficient? If so, can you identify them?

5. Do you believe that these groups are stimulating demand for “higher welfare” products in a way that will adversely affect overall demand? Given that all of these groups are promoting “happy” exploitation labels, can you doubt that whatever the effect will be, these groups believe that these labels will make people feel more comfortable about exploitation?

I hope that you enjoy the discussion.

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.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
©2011 Gary L. Francione

Commentary #22: The Peace Advocacy Network and the Vegan Pledge Campaign

Gary L. Francione — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:26:48 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

The Peace Advocacy Network was founded in 2010 as a grassroots group completely run by volunteers that works for the the absence of violence in the lives of animals—human and non-human alike.

One of the PAN projects is Vegan Pledge. From the PAN website:

The Vegan Pledge started in the UK. Board members of Peace Advocacy Network brought the Pledge to Philly last year [2009], and with great success. Thirty non-vegan people pledged to go vegan for 30 days with the Pledge program’s support. This support included weekly meetings consisting of cooking classes, environmental and health speakers, a personal mentor (experienced vegans), social events for support, and an incredible care package to make 30 days of being vegan that much easier. This year, the Pledge is expanding to more cities, and we need you.

PAN President, Leila Fusfeld says: “Although the Vegan Pledge itself only lasts for one month, the program is designed to give participants the tools and knowledge to help them stay vegan for life.”

PAN is an example of a group that makes the connection between human rights and animal rights issues and the importance of nonviolence. The PAN Vegan Pledge Project is an exciting example of creative, nonviolent vegan advocacy. In this Commentary, Leila Fusfeld will join me to explain more about the Vegan Pledge Campaign and how you can bring this exciting campaign to your community.

For more information about the Vegan Pledge, click here. If you are already a vegan and are interested in being a mentor, speaker, or food preparation demonstrator, click here If you want to support this effort by sponsoring a pledge, contact Peace Advocacy Network

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.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione

Commentary #21: “The Animal Rights Debate,” the Abolitionist Approach Discussion Forum, and a Response to Nicolette Hahn Niman

Gary L. Francione — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:24:57 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

In this Commentary, I discuss three issues.

First, I talk about my new book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, co-authored with Professor Robert Garner, and published by Columbia University Press.

This book focuses on the debate ongoing in the animal advocacy community: should we pursue welfare reform as a means to the end of achieving animal rights? I argue against welfare reform; Garner argues for it.

Second, two weeks ago, on October 26, 2010, we launched the Abolitionist Approach Forum, a place where those interested can discuss the theoretical issues concerning abolition and veganism and practical ideas on creative, nonviolent vegan education, as well as exchange information about nutrition, vegan food, raising vegan children, etc.

So far we have 200+ members and the discussions are terrific. There are only two rules: civil, respectful discourse and no promotion of violence.

If you are interested in learning more about vegan philosophy and the abolitionist approach to animal rights, consider joining the Forum.

Third, I present a response to Nicolette Hahn Niman, of the Niman Ranch, which sells “happy” meat that is, according to the website, “Humanely Raised on Sustainable U.S. Family Farms and Ranches.”

In a recent essay published in The Atlantic, Dogs Aren’t Dinner: The Flaws in an Argument for Veganism, Ms. Niman denies that we suffer from moral schizophrenia when we treat some animals as members of our families but stick forks into others. Her analysis, in a nutshell, is that, as a cultural matter, we have a different relationship with dogs than we do pigs.

That is precisely the problem: as a cultural matter, we treat some sentient nonhumans as things and some as persons. But cultural norms cannot serve as any sort of justification of cultural norms! If they could, then racism, sexism, and all sorts of discrimination and human rights violations would be justified.

I hope that you enjoy the Commentary.

If you are not vegan, why aren’t you vegan? It is not necessary in any way for humans to exploit nonhumans. So why do it? Going vegan is easy; better for your health; and, most important, the very least you can do if you regard animals as having moral significance.

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

Commentary #20: Creative, Non-violent Vegan Advocacy in a Challenging Environment

Gary L. Francione — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:01:17 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

In this Commentary, I have an extended discussion with two abolitionist vegan advocates, Jeff Perz and Renata Peters. Jeff and Renata live in Alice Springs, Australia, a remote and small city in central Australia dominated by the cattle industry and exactly the sort of place where you would think it impossible to generate enthusiasm about veganism.

But Renata and Jeff prove that anywhere can be the home of a vegan movement—if you want it!

Jeff is a Canadian; Renata is Australian. Together, these two vegans, who are also into non-violent communication, discuss with me how they became vegan, why they are abolitionists, and what they are doing in Alice Springs to educate people about veganism.

Renata and Jeff will show you that you do not need a large organization or a big budget to do effective vegan advocacy. All you need is the willingness to work hard and to think creatively about how best to educate the community in which you live. Vegan cupcakes help!

I found my discussion with Jeff and Renata to be inspiring and I know that you will as well.

At the outset of the Commentary, I discuss briefly a new campaign by the British welfarist group, Animal Aid, which is:

calling for CCTV to be installed in all UK slaughterhouses and for the footage to be made available to independent parties outside of the slaughterhouse. We also want better independent training, regular retraining and assessment, rigorous enforcement of the laws and an end to those with outstanding convictions for violence or animal cruelty working in slaughterhouses.

A slaughterhouse whose contract with a large British supermarket chain was suspended after allegations of animal cruelty by Animal Aid had its contract reinstated after “improvements at the abattoir, including the introduction of CCTV” as demanded by Animal Aid.

Andrew Tyler of Animal Aid commented:

“It shows quite clearly the importance of our investigation that the company says its own standards have improved dramatically,” he said.

“That underlines in absolutely clear terms that what we are doing, and what we will continue to do, is a vital task “We are pleased that CCTV has been introduced. It’s absolutely vital that the footage is not just collected, but is regularly scrutinised by Sainsbury’s and the regulatory authority,” said Mr Tyler.

As you might guess, many animal advocates are understandably outraged that Animal Aid is now forming partnerships with institutional exploiters to promote and sell “happy” meat.

A colleague from Britain wrote to me and shared a reply that she had received from Tyler in response to her objection to this foolish campaign. Tyler attempted to justify the CCTV campaign with the following example:

Take this example: you are at a ‘livestock’ market and see a sheep repeatedly kicked in the head and stamped on. Do you intervene to end that extreme abuse or would you regard that as ‘welfarist’ given that, even if you stopped the kicking and stamping, the sheep will still be slaughtered?

Ingrid Newkirk of PETA made the same argument almost 20 years ago when, in the context, of promoting animal welfare reform that she claimed would move us closer to animal rights, argued that those who opposed welfare reform would deny a thirsty cow water on the way to the slaughterhouse.

I discussed Newkirk’s position in my 1996 book, Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement. I argued that if I were a guard in a concentration camp, I would certainly give water to a political prisoner being taken for execution. But if I concluded that the concentration camp for political prisoners was, as a general matter, an unjust and immoral institution, I would quit my job and campaign for shutting down the camp. I would not campaign for giving water to prisoners about to be shot, or other measures designed to whitewash the immorality of the institution.

My reply to Newkirk applies to Tyler’s example. Sure, I would stop the sheep from being kicked. I would imagine that most sheep owners and slaughterhouse operators would do the same. After all, kicking the sheep causes carcass damage and that reduces the value of the sheep. But would I campaign for more “humane” treatment of sheep? Absolutely not. That does nothing more than whitewash an inherently immoral institution and make the public more comfortable about eating meat.

And that is exactly what Animal Aid is doing. It is encouraging the public to believe there is a right and a wrong way to exploit animals.

There is not. There is only a wrong way.

People should not engage in child molestation. But if there are going to do so, it is better that they not torture the children as well as sexually molest them. But should we campaign for more “humane” child molestation? No, of course not. There is no right way to engage in child molestation, just as there no right way to engage in the torture and killing of animals.

It is disturbing to see how many meat/dairy consumers are praising the Animal Aid campaign. But it is to be expected. Animal Aid is selling them an indulgence and, for a donation, telling them that they can continue to exploit, as long as they buy from a supermarket that gets its meat from a slaughterhouse with CCTV.

It’s really appalling and I ask all abolitionist animal rights advocates in the U.K. not to support this ill-advised campaign (although I am sure that the U.S. welfarists will jump on this bandwagon as well). And, while you are at it, U.K. advocates: please write to Viva! and request that they stop selling non-vegan cookbooks, stop promoting non-vegan restaurants and inns, and stop portraying eating dairy products as morally better than eating flesh.

I should add that 20 years ago, Newkirk was saying that we had to support welfare to move us closer to animal rights. Well, it’s 20 years later and if Newkirk thinks we’re any closer—even an inch—she is in deep denial. And we now have Tyler trotting out the same ridiculous argument.

If you are not a vegan, go vegan. It is easy, better for your health and the planet, and, most important, it is the right and just thing to do. It’s what we owe other animals. If you are vegan, then educate others about veganism.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione

Commentary #19: Talking With Non-Vegans About Veganism: Five Principles

Gary L. Francione — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 22:27:33 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

In this Commentary, I address a topic that I have been asked to cover by a number of you: how do we talk with non-vegans about veganism?

I present five general principles:

Principle #1: People are good at heart.

Our default position when we talk with people ought to be that they are good at heart, and interested in, and educable about, moral issues. There is a tendency among at least some advocates to have a very misanthropic view of other humans and to see them as being inherently immoral or uninterested in issues of morality. I disagree with that view.

Principle #2: People are not stupid.

There is a tendency among animal advocates to believe that the general public is not able to understand the arguments in favor of veganism and that we must “go easy” and instead of talking about veganism, we should talk about vegetarianism, “Meat Free Monday,” “happy” meat and animal products, etc. I disagree with this very elitist way of thinking about other people. There is no mystery here; there is nothing complicated. People can understand if we teach effectively.

Principle #3: Do not get defensive; respond, don’t react.

Yes, some people will try to provoke us or will ask questions or make comments that we find insulting or that we take not to be serious. If someone is really not interested in what we are saying, they will, as a general matter, walk away. Treat every comment and question—even the ones you find abrasive, rude, or sarcastic—as an invitation being offered to you by someone who is more provoked (in a positive way) by you and engaged than you might think.

Principle #4: Do not get frustrated. Education is hard work.

You will get the same question many times; you will be asked questions that indicate you must start at the beginning with someone. But if you want to be an effective educator, you have to answer every question as if it is the first time you heard it. If you want others to be enthusiastic about your message, you have to be enthusiastic about it first.

Principle #5: Learn the basics. You have to be a student first before you become a teacher.

Many animal advocates become excited about abolitionist veganism and the next thing that happens is that they set up a website or start a blog that is motivated by the right feelings but not informed by clear ideas. Before you teach others, learn about the basics. Take advantage of abolitionist vegan resources, such as the videos, pamphlets, and other materials available on this site and materials available on other abolitionist sites such as animalemacipation.com and the Boston Vegan Association.

The sad fact is that the biggest obstacles to vegan education are the large, new welfarist groups that have become partners with institutional animal exploiters to promote the consumption of animal products by giving various forms of “animal rights approval” to animal exploitation (see, for example 1, 2).

These new welfarist groups are part of the problem; they are not part of the solution.

I hope you find the Commentary to be useful. As I indicate, I will be pleased to do future Commentaries in which I address further issues related to vegan advocacy depending on the feedback I receive on this Commentary.

Go vegan. It is easy. It is better for your health and for the planet. But most important, it is the morally right and just thing to do.

Gary L. Francione
© 2010 Gary L. Francione

Commentary #8: A Discussion of Abolitionist Principles

Commentary #18: A Step Backward, the Importance of Veganism, and the Misuse of “Abolition”

Gary L. Francione — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 04:16:19 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

In this Commentary, I discuss several topics:

First, I talk about the announcement by the new welfarist Mercy for Animals that the retail giant Costco has taken a “step forward” by agreeing to market “humane” veal. I maintain that having animal advocates praise this as a “step forward” and characterizing the issue of eating veal (as opposed to all animal products) as an important issue is a step backward.

Second, I address the argument made by certain large organizations that because we cannot avoid animal products altogether, any baseline moral principle that we should adhere to veganism is just artificial “personal purity.”

Finally, I talk about the misuse of “abolition” by those who advocate welfare reform and violence.

I also discuss briefly the abolitionist workshop that we held at Rutgers in late May and my forthcoming book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, which is being published by Columbia University Press.

I hope you enjoy the Commentary.

Gary L. Francione
© Gary L. Francione

Commentary #17: Discussion with Ronnie Lee and Roger Yates

Gary L. Francione — Mon, 03 May 2010 02:50:21 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

In this Commentary, I have two guests: Ronnie Lee, who founded the Band of Mercy in 1972 and the Animal Liberation Front in 1976, and Roger Yates, an adjunct lecturer in sociology at University College, Dublin.

As I am sure you are aware, I am opposed to all violence and I do not support militant direct action. This is the starting point for my discussion with Ronnie and Roger but we go on to talk about a variety of topics. And we are all agreed about the importance of creative, nonviolent vegan education.

I hope that you enjoy the Commentary.

And by the way:

Go vegan. It’s better for your health (animal foods cause physical harm); it’s better for the environment (animal agriculture is an ecological disaster); and, most importantly, it’s the morally right thing to do.

Gary L. Francione
© 2010 Gary L. Francione

Commentary #16: Responding to Questions: Single-Issue Campaigns and MDA Opposition to the Abolitionist Approach

Gary L. Francione — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:09:47 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

Several weeks ago, I asked for questions that people would like me to address. I received approximately 80 questions. I plan to do several Commentaries in which I discuss at least some of these questions.

A number of the questions that I received concern single-issue campaigns so this Commentary deals primarily with that topic and with the issue about why many of those who promote violence are opposed to the abolitionist approach.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione

Commentary #15: The Tide Is Turning

Gary L. Francione — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:15:36 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

Victor Schonfeld, director of the influential 1982 film, The Animals Film, followed up his two-part BBC World Service program, One Planet: Animals and Us, with an editorial, The Five Fatal Flaws of Animal Activism, in the Guardian, one of the leading U.K. newspapers.

Schonfeld once again made clear that the mainstream movement had lost its way. He criticized welfare campaigns, the promotion of “happy” meat and animal products, giving awards to slaughterhouse designers, and PETA’s relentless sexism. He once again endorsed the idea that veganism should be the moral baseline.

Schonfeld was quite remarkably criticized by Vegan Outreach, which is now transparently part of the animal welfare/”happy” meat initiative. But even more remarkable was that three days after Scholfeld’s editorial appeared, PETA’s Ingrid Newkirk replied in the Guardian, defending PETA’s status as an animal welfare organization and calling its sexist campaigns “harmless antics.”

I did a blog entry on Newkirk’s editorial.

In this Commentary, I discuss whether the tide is turning in favor of creative, nonviolent abolitionist-vegan advocacy. My guests are Roger Yates, who is an adjunct lecturer in sociology at University College, Dublin and Vincent J. Guihan, a doctoral student at Canada’s Carleton University and a person who has a finely-tuned sense of the politics of the animal movement.

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione

Commentary #14: Analysis of Second Segment of “Animals and Us”

Gary L. Francione — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 03:48:59 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

The second segment of the BBC’s One Planet: Animals and Us, hosted by Victor Schonfeld (who did the influential The Animals Film in 1982), focused on vivisection. Schonfeld ended the program by agreeing that the animal rights movement needs crystal clear guidelines and he explored veganism as a possible way to deal with the problem of animal exploitation.

The BBC World Service is the most widely-listened to radio program in the world. It is exciting that veganism was discussed on the program.

In this Commentary, sociology instructor Roger Yates and NZ Podcast Producer Elizabeth Collins will join me for a commentary on the second segment of “Animals and Us.”

We will also discuss Norm Phelps’ most recent endorsement of new welfarism.

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione

Commentary #13: Analysis of First Segment of “Animals and Us”

Gary L. Francione — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:31:09 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

On December 31, 2009, the BBC World Service broadcast the first segment of the two-part program One Planet: Animals and Us. This program was hosted by Victor Schonfeld, who did the highly influential The Animals Film in 1982. The Animals Film was among the first—if not the first—film to reveal how humans actually treated nonhumans. Animals and Us involves Schonfeld’s return to the topic 27 years later to ask whether anything has changed since 1982. The first segment dealt primarily with the use of animals for food and focused on factory farming.

In this Commentary, sociology instructor Roger Yates and New Zealand podcasting phenomenon Elizabeth Collins, and I discuss and critique this first segment.

If you are not vegan, go vegan. It’s easy; it’s better for your health and for the planet; and, most importantly, it’s the morally right thing to do.

And remember: THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione

Commentary #12: The Virtual Billboard Campaign: THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:32:51 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

In this commentary, I discuss the virtual billboard campaign, which focuses on empowering advocates with a positive message that change is possible and that we have the responsibility to effect that change. It is time to reject the vegan bashing that has become the central focus of the welfarist movement.

And I introduce Christine, the newest member of our nonhuman family!

I hope that you enjoy the podcast and that you will join our nonviolent efforts to spread the message of veganism around the world.

Gary L. Francione
©2009 Gary L. Francione

Commentary #11: Discussion with Professor Gary Steiner

Gary L. Francione — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 04:26:05 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

In this, Commentary #11, I have a discussion with Gary Steiner, Professor of Philosophy and Chair of the Philosophy Department at Bucknell University. Gary recently had an editorial in the New York Times about veganism and we talk about the reactions that he got to his editorial, including the criticisms from welfarists, many of whom praise slaughterhouse designer Temple Grandin and other supporters of speciesist exploitation.

We also discuss how welfarists refuse to engage abolitionists in debate because they have nothing to say in response to the argument that welfare reform merely increases the production efficiency of animal exploitation.

Gary L. Francione
©2009 Gary L. Francione

Commentary #10: World Vegan Day—Nov. 1, 2009

Gary L. Francione — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 04:45:25 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

Happy World Vegan Day to all of you.

In this Commentary, I reflect on the state of the vegan movement. The bad news: the large welfare corporations have done a great deal to marginalize veganism. The good news: in the past year, we have seen the growth of the abolitionist movement, which views veganism as the moral baseline, rejects welfare reform and single-issue campaigns, and considers veganism as essential to any coherent theory of nonviolence.

If you are not already vegan then start today. It’s easy. It’s better for your health and for the planet. But most importantly, ethical veganism represents your commitment to justice, the abolition of animal exploitation, and nonviolence.

Gary L. Francione
© 2009 Gary L. Francione

Commentary #9: Using Sexism to Promote Animal Rights

Gary L. Francione — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:57:39 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

Would Martin Luther King have had an “I’d Rather Go Naked than Sit in the Back of the Bus” campaign?

Of course not.

He would have recognized that such a campaign would trivialize the important message of civil rights.

Why don’t animal advocates recognize that sexist campaigns similarly trivialize the issue of animal rights and give people yet another reason to dismiss the animal rights issue?

That is the topic of our ninth Commentary.

Commentary #8: A Discussion of Abolitionist Principles

Gary L. Francione — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:03:05 +0000

Dear Colleagues: There are some advocates who claim to be abolitionists but who support welfare reform or who support violence. In this Commentary, I explain why welfare reform and violence cannot fit into the abolitionist approach. Gary L. Francione ©2009 Gary L. Francione Related posts: Commentary #21: “The Animal Rights Debate,” the Abolitionist Approach Discussion [...] Related posts:

Commentary #7: An Up-Close and Personal Encounter with Moral Schizophrenia

Gary L. Francione — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:36:16 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

I refer to the delusional and confused way that we think about animals as a social/moral matter as constituting “moral schizophrenia.”

I had a recent encounter with moral schizophrenia in dealing with a deer who had been hit by a car and the hunters who stopped to help the deer.

In this Commentary, I describe and discuss what happened.

Commentary #6: Aspects of the Vegetarian/Vegan Debate

Gary L. Francione — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 13:06:11 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

Our first Commentary about vegetarianism as a “gateway” to veganism has provoked continuing controversy and in this Commentary, I address three issues:

1. Does my position that we cannot draw a moral distinction between flesh and other animal products mean that we ought to be confrontational or judgmental when we talk to people who are not vegans?

The short answer: no, of course not.

2. What do we do when someone says that they care about the issue of animal exploitation but they just are not going to give up animal products.

The short answer: that is generally a reaction that is really inviting more discussion.

3. Why do new welfarists so vehemently reject veganism as a moral baseline?

The short answer: a key principle of animal welfare theory is that it is acceptable to use and to kill animals as long as we do not make them suffer. Veganism is simply one way—among many others, including “happy” meat/animal products—to reduce suffering. Veganism has no greater significance than as a way of reducing suffering.

I hope that this Commentary clarifies some of the excellent questions that I have received.

Commentary #5: On Violence

Gary L. Francione — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:37:15 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

I am opposed to violence. I regard violence as inherently immoral. I have written about and discussed that issue often, including in essays (1,2) on this site.

I recognize that many of you disagree with my opposition to violence.

But that is irrelevant. Even if you believe that violence can be justified, there are still compelling reasons to maintain that violence makes no sense whatsoever in the context of the struggle for animal rights.

I maintain that the only thing that makes any practical sense is creative, non-violent vegan education. That strategy is anything but passive; it involves our working actively and constantly to shift a fundamental paradigm—the notion that animals are things, resources, property; that they are exclusively means to human ends.

Until we build a critical mass of people who reject that paradigm, nothing will change.

In this Commentary, I discuss the matter of violence.

Commentary #4: Follow-Up to “Pets” Commentary: Non-Vegan Cats

Gary L. Francione — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:39:24 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

A number of people have written to me in response to the Commentary on “pets” to ask about the issue of non-vegan cats.

It is my understanding that many cats can live healthy lives on a vegan diet but what if there are cats who absolutely need to consume animal products?

In this Commentary, I offer some ideas that I hope will stimulate your thinking about this issue.

Commentary #3: On Michael Vick

Gary L. Francione — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 23:27:55 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

As you know, I have since 2007 been wondering about why anyone thinks that Michael Vick is any worse than anyone else who consumes or uses animal products. (See 1, 2, 3)

In any event, Vick was released from prison in May, 2009, and on July 27, 2009, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell conditionally reinstated Vick. The Philadelphia Eagles have given Vick a one-year deal with an option for a second year.

Judging from media reports and blog essays, many animal advocates are outraged and some advocates are calling for a boycott of the NFL

In this Commentary, I explain why I think the Michael Vick matter is not really about Michael Vick or dog fighting. It is about fundamental moral principles that we claim as a society to accept.

Commentary #2: “Pets”

Gary L. Francione — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:29:24 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

The issue of “pets” is a hot button issue with many advocates.

Here is something I wrote in the Appendix to my book Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog?:

Question 3: Does the institution of pet ownership violate animals’ basic right not to be regarded as things?

Answer: Yes. Pets are our property. Dogs, cats, hamsters, rabbits, and other animals are mass produced like bolts in a factory or, in the case of birds and exotic animals, are captured in the wild and transported long distances, during which journey many of them die. Pets are marketed in exactly the same way as other commodities. Although some of us may treat our companion animals well, more of us treat them poorly. In America, most dogs spend less than two years in a home before they are dumped at a pound or otherwise transferred to a new owner; more than 70 percent of people who adopt animals give them away, take them to shelters, or abandon them. We are all aware of horror stories about neighborhood dogs on short chains who spend most of their lives alone. Our cities are full of stray cats and dogs who live miserable lives and starve or freeze, succumb to disease, or are tormented by humans. Some people who claim to love their companion animals mutilate them senselessly by having their ears cropped, their tails docked, or their claws ripped out so that they will not scratch the furniture.

You may treat your animal companion as a member of your family and effectively accord her or him inherent value or the basic right not to be treated as your resource. But your treatment of your animal really means that you regard your animal property as having higher than market value; should you change your mind and administer daily and severe beatings to your dog for disciplinary purposes, or not feed your cat so that she will be more motivated to catch the mice in the basement of your store, or kill your animal because you no longer want the financial expense, your decision will be protected by the law. You are free to value your property as you see fit. You may decide to polish your car often or you may let the finish erode. The choice is yours. As long as you provide the minimal maintenance for your car so that it can pass inspection, any other decision you make with respect to the vehicle, including your decision to give it to a scrap dealer, is your business. As long as you provide minimal food, water, and shelter to your pet, any other decision you make, apart from torturing the animal for no purpose whatsoever, is your business, including your decision to dump your pet at the local shelter (where many animals are either killed or sold into research, or have your pet killed by a willing veterinarian.

Many years ago, I adopted a hamster from a law school classmate. The hamster became ill one night, and I called an emergency veterinary service. The veterinarian said that the minimum amount for an emergency visit was $50 and asked me why I would want to spend that amount when I could get a “new” hamster from any pet shop for about $3. I took the hamster to the veterinarian anyway, but that event was one of the first times my consciousness was raised about the status of animals as economic commodities.

As someone who lives with seven rescued canine companions whom I love dearly, I do not treat this matter lightly. Although I regard my companions as family members, they are still my property and I could decide tomorrow to have them all killed. As much as I enjoy living with dogs, were there only two dogs remaining in the world, I would not be in favor of breeding them so that we could have more “pets” and thus perpetuate their property status. Indeed, anyone who truly cares about dogs should visit a “puppy mill”–a place where dogs are bred in the hundreds or thousands and are treated as nothing more than commodities. Female dogs are bred repeatedly until they are “spent” and are either killed or sold into research. We should, of course, care for all those domestic animals that are presently alive, but we should not continue to bring more animals into existence so that we may own them as pets.

In this second Abolitionist Approach Commentary, we will explore the issue of “pets.”

No related posts.

Commentary #1: Vegetarianism as a “Gateway” to Veganism?

Gary L. Francione — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 04:45:55 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

Welcome to the Abolitionist Approach Commentary.

The Commentary will consist of a series of podcasts that discuss and explore various aspects of the idea that we ought to abolish, and not merely regulate, animal exploitation. The Commentary will reflect ideas contained in this website and in my books.

Animals are nonhuman persons and we cannot morally justify treating them as human resources. In addition, because animals are chattel property or economic commodities, regulation of animal treatment costs money and animal welfare regulations will almost never provide significant protection for animal interests. As a general matter, welfare regulations actually make animal use more profitable because the regulations implemented are those that result in an economic benefit for producers and consumers. The Abolitionist Approach Commentary will discuss why animal welfare reform does not and cannot work to provide protection for nonhuman animals.

The Abolitionist Approach Commentary will promote ethical veganism and creative, non-violent vegan education as the primary forms of activism to move toward the abolition of animal use. Ethical veganism goes beyond not just eating animal products; it rejects the use of animals for clothing or the use of products that contain animal ingredients or that have been tested on animals. There is no moral distinction between flesh and other animal products. All animal products involve animal suffering and death.

The Abolitionist Approach Commentary will explore the notion of “animal rights.” Although there is a great deal of controversy about what rights humans should have, we all oppose human slavery, or treating humans as chattel property. The Abolitionist Approach maintains that we cannot morally justify denying this one right to all sentient nonhumans. This means that we should stop bringing domesticated animals into existence. We should care for those who are here now but we should not bring any more into existence. We should leave non-domesticated animals alone and stop encroaching on and destroying their habitats.

The Abolitionist Approach Commentary will seek to explore our “moral schizophrenia” or the delusional and confused way in which we approach animal ethics. We all agree that it is wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering and death on nonhuman animals. If “necessity” is to have any coherent meaning, it must mean at least that it is wrong to inflict suffering and death on nonhuman animals for reasons of pleasure, amusement, or convenience. But the overwhelming portion of animal use can be justified only by pleasure, amusement, or convenience. Many of us live with nonhumans animals who we regard as members of our families. But we stick forks into other animals who are no different factually or morally from the nonhumans we love.

The Abolitionist Approach Commentary will also discuss the issue of violence and will explain why the movement to abolish animal exploitation should be part of a larger movement for Ahimsa, or non-violence. All humans exploit animals in some way or another. Therefore, violence directed at institutional users makes no sense. The institutional users of animals and producers of animal products are not the problem; the problem is the public, which demands animal products. If animal exploitation is ever to be ended, we must educate people in a non-violent way and shift the moral paradigm away from treating animals as property.

Finally, the Abolitionist Approach Commentary will address the important relationship between animal rights and human rights, and will explore why we should not use sexism, racism, and other forms of discrimination to promote animal rights.

In this first Commentary, I discuss whether we should promote vegetarianism as a “gateway” to veganism. I conclude that the answer is “no.”

The bottom line: if you are a vegetarian, you are still complicit in animal suffering; you are still complicit in animal killing.

If you regard animals as nonhuman moral persons, why would you be complicit in animal suffering and death?

I hope that you find this Commentary and our future efforts useful for your thinking about animal ethics.