Response to the CCF
The points made by CCF illustrate appallingly bad logic.
First, CCF argues that humans are "special." Humans certainly do have particular abilities that other animals lack, but not all humans have those "special" abilities. Moreover, other animals have abilities that humans lack. We declare--in a very arbitrary way--that the characteristics that humans have are "special" and we conclude that humans therefore have greater moral significance. But that is a declaration and not an argument.
Humans can do calculus and write symphonies but so what? Why is the ability to do calculus or write symphonies relevant to moral significance? Why are these abilities more morally important than the ability to fly without the aid of a airplane? And many humans cannot do calculus or write symphonies. Indeed, many humans lack reason and the ability to use abstract concepts altogether. Such deficiencies may be relevant for certain purposes but they are completely irrelevant to the question whether we should use such humans in biomedical experiments or as forced organ donors.
So unless CCF wants to take the position that smarter people have greater moral significance than those who are less intelligent and that the latter may be treated as resources for the benefit of the former, the argument about "special" abilities goes nowhere.
.
Second, CCF claims that we should not accord moral significance to animals because they cannot understand moral significance.
Again, a very poor argument. There are many human beneficiaries of rights--children, the senile, the mentally differently-abled, etc.--who may not understand rights or any other notion connected with moral philosophy.
So what? The issue is our moral obligation not their level of comprehension.
Third, CCF argues that we should not force anyone to become a vegan. I have certainly never argued to the contrary. The decision to reject the violence entailed by consuming and otherwise using nonhumans must be a matter of moral choice. This is not to say that the morality of veganism is a matter of opinion. It is not. There are no sound arguments in favor of the continued exploitation of nonhuman animals, as the statements put forth by CCF and the Reason Foundation demonstrate rather clearly. But it would not be feasible to try to legally prohibit the consumption of animal products given that most humans presently consume them. When our society shifts to veganism, which is inevitable for ecological and health reasons if not compelled by coherent moral thinking, the law may play some role in enforcing prohibitions on exploiting animals. But we would need a great deal of societal agreement and a shift in the moral paradigm before such prohibitions become feasible.
I certainly do agree that animal advocates such never use violence of any sort to advance the cause of animal rights. Violence is the problem, not the solution. The solution is not to participate in an unjust institution and that is achieved by embracing veganism and educating others about the moral imperative (on multiple levels) of veganism. The arguments in favor of veganism are compelling and many people respond very favorably when these arguments are presented in a coherent and non-confrontational manner.
Fourth, CCF states: "According to the OSU study, even a completely vegan U.S. diet would
result in the deaths of 1.2 billion animals every year. That's more animals
than would die if we were eating a meat-based diet skewed heavily
toward ruminant animals (cows, calves, sheep, and lambs)." I assume that the "OSU study" is the one by Steven Davis published in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics in 2003. Davis's paper has been thoroughly discredited in the response that is appended below. The bottom line is that Davis's article rests on patently flawed assumptions and methodology.
Fifth, CCF argues that because humans are omnivores, we ought to eat animal products.
Again, a bad argument. We are omnivores in that we can eat animal products. But so what? I am biologically capable of injuring others who are weaker than I. Ought I to do so? Of course not. A biological fact cannot prove a moral confusion.
We certainly do not need to eat animal products to be optimally healthy. Indeed, there is compelling evidence that animal products are detrimental to human health. This means that we have a moral choice. Saying that we can eat animal products does not mean lead to the conclusion that we ought to do so.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
It took me a while to understand the concept of who is morally significant- those who have free-will are morally significant in that they have accountability for what they do. Only actions performed freely require moral justification. The argument for usign animals seems to always rest on the idea that animals do not act morally to each other so why should we treat them any differently. Animals do not act with the same degree of free will as humans do, consequently they need not justify their actions to us. We need not justify our actions to animals, but we are responsible morally for what we do to animals to ourselves because we are free agents to a greater extent than animals are.
I think the argument about individual freedom and responsibility is constantly used with the disadvantaged and the poor in societies. Those from disadvantaged backgrounds are assumed to possess the same degree of freedom as those from advantaged backgrounds and so their acts of crime or violence are considered to be choices for which they are responsible and therefore which should be punished. But to what degree were these actions free choices? Sometimes it is not so clear cut- any study of the backgrounds of people in prison will reveal their choices were actually very limited. It is pointless to attribute moral responsibility where there is no choice. The same applies to animals. However, this does not mean that those who do have choice are not responsible for what they do to those who have less choice.
What can I say, Gary's arguments are arguments, FCC's are just dogmas and tangential explanations.
Thumbs up for Gary.
Ï have read some stuff about "speciesism" and watched the video "theory of animal rights" on your website and by reading your response to the CCF (who aren't very clever I agree ) I have realised an interesting thing.
When I imagine that I am in a world in which the majority of humans are cannibals and in which there are human slaughterhouses, I would not just talk with every cannibal and say to him that it is wrong to kill humans and that it is a "moral imperative" to stop eating human flesh, I would certainly gather with other people who think like me and would demand a law that forbids killing humans, because it is the right thing to do even if we aren't a lot. I wouldn't be able to say this: "The decision to reject the violence entailed by consuming and otherwise using nonhumans must be a matter of moral choice.", because i think that killing humans is absolutely wrong and that even if some people want to continue to eat humans they should be stopped.
If you are antispeciesist but you just say to people who eat animals that it is wrong to do it and that it is a "moral imperative" to stop, that means that (possibility 1) if you were in a world in which humans were killed in slaughterhouses, you would just say to the cannibals that they should make the moral choice to stop eating humans whithout even demanding a law that forbids this practice which would be completely unethical and irrestpectful of human rigths. Or that means that (possibility 2)you would demand a law that forbids killing humans but you don't demand it for animals because unconsciously you think like the majority of humans that animals are less important than humans.
Which one is it?
Zeus,
What can I say except that there are many aspects of a social movement. I realize that a million-person march on national capitals is a real tour-de-force worthy of note, and makes headlines; but the truth is that you need a strong base before waltzing down the main streets of capital cities demand legal changes.
All past movements began with disseminating literature, organizing communities to action, holding rallies and protests, etc, and only then did they have the momentum to demand legal action. There is a lot of frustration and anger over this issue, and it’s appropriate to use that anger to write it in books, in blogs, or in these forums; to use it to enact local change in communities, to discuss it with those around you, to protest it, to sing it, to dance it, to express it in every way possible, and when it’s appropriate, to march it.
There must be efforts on all fronts. Most of them require hard work and, unfortunately, don’t grab headlines. Some of them include presenting arguments that counter the efforts of organizations such as the CCF.
In short, all I’m saying is that just because there aren’t huge rallies every weekend that doesn’t mean that effective efforts aren’t being taken to squelch the horrors of speciesism. I am very thankful for forums such as this that promote discussion and allow our message to shine through. However, I do look forward to marching at national capitals, and I hope you’ll be there with us.
Anyone expecting logic from CCF forgets that the entire point of the organization is to obfuscate the truth, misleading consumers so that their clients sell more product.
Francione, on the other hand, is about as logically rigorous as they come.
I certainly wasn't expecting logic from anyone on the Yes side actually, but good point. My aim was more to highlight Francione's reasoning... which is lightyears ahead of all the other "experts" in this debate.
As always, Gary displays impeccable logic and depth of thought. Which is more than can be said for arguments on the "yes" side that I have seen here.