Gary Francione's Illogical Vegan View of Animal Rights
Gary Francione makes the claim that his vegan view of animal rights is a logical one. See, for instance:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/the-logic-of-a-vegan-diet
Some of us have trouble understanding that logic.
Vegan logic claims that all animals are morally equal. Vegans require no proof of this, they simply consider it to be self-evident. Vegan logic goes something like this: A human, a fox, and a chicken are morally the same. It is therefore wrong for a human to kill and eat a chicken. A chicken is morally the same as a human and therefore a human killing a chicken is morally no different than a human killing another human.
If one believes that all animals are morally the same, that belief may suggest the idea that any moral law applied to one animal in a certain circumstance must applied in the same way to any other animal in the same circumstance. This is the sort of logic that drives organizations such as PETA to stand outside schoolyards and pass out pamphlets telling young children that mommy is a murderer if she serves roast chicken for supper.
Vegan logic claims that a human is morally the same as a chicken, and that it is therefore wrong for a human to kill and eat a chicken. Let us now extend vegan logic to include the fox we mentioned earlier. The human, the fox, and the chicken are morally the same according to vegan belief. If it is wrong for a human to kill and eat a chicken, then it must also be wrong for the fox to kill and eat the chicken. The fox and the chicken are morally the same, and a fox killing a chicken is no different than a fox killing another fox.
The moral laws that apply to the human must also apply to the fox for the claim that all animals are morally the same to be true. A fox that is given a free pass to kill and eat a chicken is not governed by the same morality as a human who, in the vegan way of looking at it, commits an act of murder when he or she kills and eats a chicken. If the fox is not held to account in the same way as the human, how can vegan logic claim the fox is morally the same as the human? If each species of animal was governed by its own moral laws and its own specific circumstances, it would be incorrect to claim one species was morally the same as the next.
Most of us who follow the animal rights debate will have heard of vegans who force their pet cat or dog to eat a vegan diet. In certain cases those animals have become ill or died as a result. Is it abuse of an animal to force it to follow a diet foreign to its nature?
Is Gary Francione’s veganism logical?
I'll leave these questions for others to answer.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Gary Francione represents vegans and animal liberation as much as BP represents sound environmental policy.
It is interesting to note that the animal extremists apply their censure to people who eat meat stating they lack morals and are shameful in their treatment of our animal brethren, but it is those same animal extremists who will advocate the killing of dogs and cats in shelters by the thousands. I am confused, why is it immoral to have a hamburger but perfectly okay to slaughter dogs and cats in shelters? Oh and do not blame breeders or purebred dogs and cats – neither are doing the killing.
Is a vegan diet healthy? No it is not. Any time you MUST supplement your food with vitamins and minerals you are not eating healthy. Our brains require protein – it is how they developed into the size they are today – by eating animal protein. There are several studies on this; the one by Katherine Milton is very interesting. Studies have also shown that without proper nutrition our brains will not functions correctly. Your thinking processes are not as clear, decision making can be affected when your brain is malnourished. There is a big difference between vegetarianism and veganism. The former does eat animal by products, eggs, cheese so does have the chance of a more balanced diet, whereas the latter eats no animal by products.
For those vegans forcing a vegan diet on their dogs – that is abuse. Dogs are NOT omnivores they are carnivores – look at their teeth! Anyone who does this to a dog has no right to own a dog. I cannot believe that a person would be so ignorant, so fanatical as to harm a dog just to promote their human belief system. If you must be a vegan, fine. But please do NOT have a dog if you are incapable of feeding it correctly and without harm.
any time you have to supplement....... let"s talk about pellegra
Firstly, I am not calling you immoral. I do not believe you are immoral, but you do seem muddled.
Secondly, I am a vegan and certainly NOT in favour of killing "unwanted" cats or dogs.
Thirdly, yes, I do criticise breeders who wish to bring more kittens and puppies into the world when there are so many cats and dogs that are being euthanised because there are no homes for them.
Fourthly, you are neatly avoiding the amount of supplemented food consumed by omnivores. Why does the law (in the UK) demand the addition of Vitamin A and Vitamin D to all margarine, when most margarine contains milk products? Why do most cereals have folic acid added? What about the iodine fed to cows so their milk will be rich in iodine?
Fifthly, it is Katharine Milton. If you admire her work so much, why not trouble to get her name right?
Sixthly, her work has been widely criticised, not least for being so vague.
Seventhly, my brain works perfectly well on a vegan diet. As does the rest of my body.
Eighthly, there are plenty of healthy vegans and cats and dogs. As you would know if you took the time to look at the subject. I don't think you know as much as you think you do about protein requirements.
Ninethly, cheese and eggs are not "by products". Animals are killed so that the dairy and egg industries can function "efficiently".
Tenthly, I do not see the logic in dictating that cows should die to feed dogs.
"animal extremists"?
--- is it really that extreme to give a crap about other species? Is fighting for justice really that extreme?
"same animal extremists who will advocate the killing of dogs and cats in shelters by the thousands."
--- the acts of the few don't represent the movement of the whole. I do not, as a vegan, agree whatsoever with PETAs stance on killing healthy adoptable animals. There are many vegans who disagree with much of what the leading animal welfare groups do. There is moral confusion even among animal "rights" people. There are speciesist vegans out their too, and unfortunately they have large organizations backing them.
I don't think slaughter an animal in a shelter or slaughter house is right.
"Is a vegan diet healthy? No it is not. Any time you MUST supplement your food with vitamins and minerals you are not eating healthy. "
--- yes it is. You wouldn't believe how much animal products are supplemented (from the feed given to farmed animals, to the supplements added to the finished products). You probably unknowingly consume more supplements then i do. The only supplement i take is Vitamin B12. I bet you supplement a whole lot more indirectly and directly (the multivitamin pills sold all over are not being consumed exclusively by vegans... rather the large majority of omnivores are willingly supplementing their own diets.
"Our brains require protein – it is how they developed into the size they are today – by eating animal protein"
--- protein is available in almost anything, including vegetables, grains, legumes, fruits etc. There is no biological need for animal specific protein. The body needs to ingest essential amino acids, from whatever source. If it gets all of them from plants or from animal sources, it uses them just the same.
"For those vegans forcing a vegan diet on their dogs – that is abuse. Dogs are NOT omnivores they are carnivores"
--- they are not obligate carnivores. The thrive just well on a balanced vegan diet. If you are concerned about abuse, go vegan and stop supporting the abuse of BILLIONS of farmed animals each year (animals which are very similar to your dog/cat etc).
There is no doubt humans can survive without eating animal food .
The debate usually starts with the premise that we eat animals “just for pleasure”.
But this has to be parsed out in terms of what taste really is in evolutionary terms, and what the derived pleasure means in terms of overall biological and psychological well-being. Here, I suggest reading Ackerman’s wonderful book “A natural history of the senses”.
I believe it is not obvious one can disentangle “mere pleasure” from the consequences such pleasure has on the well-being of a biological organism. One difference between humans and non-human animals is that humans are not satisfied with mere living, they need to live well. If some people find it difficult to be satisfied with a vega diet, denying them access to other foods infringes on their interests and biological well-being.
define" live well". there is not one set definition of what living well means for all.....there are things we derive pleasure from that are not always beneficial for us. so are you saying we have no self control when it comes to pleasure? there are plenty of other things we can do with our tongues ;)
darioringach, you contradict everything else you say in your very first sentence. If humans can survive without eating animal food --and they not only survive, but thrive, as long as (like omnivores) they are careful to avoid any nutrient deficiencies--then the fact that humans eat animals has nothing to do with evolution (i.e., with behaviors or characteristics that confer a survival advantage).
Almost everything about how most animal products (or plant products) taste has to do with how they are prepared. Without some sort of spices, most meat and quite a few vegetables are pretty bland. People who love barbecued ribs enjoy them mainly because they have barbecue sauce on them and it happens to go well with them; the meat itself doesn't have much of a taste.
Survival is not the only thing that matters at least to humans. For many animals biological well being is all that matters. For humans it is not, as evidenced by the fact that many of them kill themselves if they do not live the lives they aspire to.
I have heard it all now. I was told that animals are not "full moral agents" because they cannot write poetry. (Even bad poetry, one assumes.) And now I find someone arguing that proof of human superiority is ... our ability to commit suicide???????!!??
I think it is rather insensitive to say that suicide is caused by inability to live the life one aspires to. I do not always live the life I aspire to do, but I hope that I would never commit suicide, because of the devastating impact that would have on my family and friends. In my opinion, most suicides are caused because the victim is severely depressed and is, for whatever reason, not accessing the right help.