The Abolitionist approach to animal rights is speciesist
While the intentions of the abolitionist approach to animal rights are to be commended the profound problem with its reasoning is that it is what it professes to hate so much: speciesist.
A more informative name for this movement would in fact be:
The abolition of all domesticated animals (apart from humans) approach.
It fundamentally misunderstands the evolutionary history of animal relationships which, in our case, has been symbiotic rather than parasitic. Both humans and our domesticated animal companions have profited from our relationships to a point which has led to the dramatic increase in our numbers as well as to change in our genomes. Both human animals and our non-human animal companions have changed in accord to each other to some degree. The domesticated wolf, dromedary, mouflon and human have evolved together in a symbiotic relationship and we all show well established genetic changes as a result of that domestication.
This is not to commit the naturalistic fallacy. I do not claim that because our evolutionary relationship has been symbiotic that we can therefore proceed as we wish regarding our treatment of other animals. It is merely a historical point to understand our relationships in a way shows that we do not hold some exalted position in which we chose them and they did not choose us.
This realization that humans are also domesticated animals shows we cannot choose to abolish all non-human domesticated animals while allowing human domesticated animals to continue to breed as they choose without ourselves being speciesist. Instead we need a criteria which can be applied fairly to all domesticated animals in order to judge which (if any) should be abolished.
Such a criterion should no doubt take into account the quality of life of the individual animals involved and attempt to give equal weight to all their interests rather than making the sweeping statement that we should abolish all non-human domesticated animals because they are not human. Such a conclusion is, of course, the very embodiment of speciesism.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Humans domesticate and breed cows, pigs and chickens, with 99% of them living in deplorable, disease-ridden and filthy factory farms, for the sole purpose of killing and eating them. The cows, pigs and chickens benefit how? So much for your symbiotic relationship theory.
The abolitionist movement isn't just targeting domesticated animals . It's interested in liberating all animals. And the reason for the abolition of animal exploitation isn't because they aren't human. It's because it's wrong to treat other sentient animals as things; as property for others to own, control and kill at will. That's slavery and slavery is wrong.
The animals value their lives and have interests of their own, and given the choice, would rather live than be killed ; would rather not suffer than suffer. Yet we do this to them simply because we like the taste of their flesh.
The abolitionist approach recognizes and respects the rights of all animals, even humans. What's that old saying? Do whatever you like as long as it doesn't harm others. Well, killing animals harms the animals. This isn't speciesist. It's compassion in action.
I suggest next time you do your homework.
You have a typical anthropocentric view on this which presumes humans have done all the choosing and made all the decisions while the animals were just exploited. Perhaps you are not aware of the genetic changes that humans have undergone due to their relationships with domesticated animals, such as lactose tolerance? In many cases it is true that animals have suffered greatly at the hands of humans but also many have thrived via domestication while their wild ancestors have died out.
What are the most successful animals from an evolutionary standpoint in the UK and US today? Is it wild boar, wolfs and bears? Or is it domesticated cows, pigs and chickens? The answer is obvious that becoming domesticated has been a successful strategy for survival among many animal species.
As I have stated, this does not mean we can therefore treat them as badly as we currently do but it means they have as much right to exist as domesticated Homo-sapiens do.
Are you are familiar with the evolutionary history of the domesticated dog? I think it is hard to argue that this has not been symbiotic, would you disagree with me on that?
You also didn’t address the main point of my thread that humans are also domesticated animals so why should the abolitionist approach argue for the abolition of all domesticated animals apart from humans?
I totally agree with you when you say :
“The animals value their lives and have interests of their own, and given the choice, would rather live than be killed ; would rather not suffer than suffer. Yet we do this to them simply because we like the taste of their flesh”
My issue is not that other animals don’t matter, I also want to see an end to their suffering but I do object the abolitionist approach to this rather than the welfare approach for the reasons I have outlined and you have not actually addressed.
Ethics is about the way we treat other sentient beings which means giving consideration to their needs. Most animals don’t have a concept or need for freedom from human use. They just need to have their needs met such as food , warmth, companionship, etc.. I fear the abolitionist approach projects aesthetic human views onto animals and then declares them to be ethical views. In this I believe you are mistaken
It would be nice if you could address my actual arguments rather than just telling me to go and do some homework.
Hi Kippers,
The term domestication refers to a process of selecting plants or animals that serve some benefit to humans and breeding them for those specific beneficial traits. While domesticated animals may have outlasted some types of wild animals who were hunted or pushed to extinction by human expansion, it does not mean they had any choice in their domestication. It was forced upon them against their will. We use cages, fences, whips, chains and other devices to control animals, break them, and finally breed them for traits of docility. We raise them from the time they are babies to trust us as if we are parents. But they do not have a choice in it.
While humans are a type of animal, we are technically not domesticated because the term refers to an intentional process of breeding plants and animals for human benefit.
While cows, pigs, chickens and other domesticated animals may have, as a species, outlived some of their wild counterparts who were systematically eliminated by humans, their relationship with humans could hardly be described as symbiotic. It is exploitive, pure and simple.
If the tables were turned, and humans were being factory farmed by some other type of animal or an alien species, I would not view it as a symbiotic relationship. If aliens controlled, bred, factory farmed and perpetually killed humans at a fraction of their natural lifespans, we would not delight in the fact that our species outlived the free roaming humans who were wiped out completely. We would still view ourselves as slaves and our alien predators as oppressors, not friends.
While non-human animal domestication is not exactly the same as human slavery, there are some obvious parallels. American slave owners often argued that slavery benefited the Africans by removing them from their "savage" environment . But of course the Africans did not feel the same way and fought against their enslavement.
Farmed animals too would often run away from this so-called "symbiotic" relationship if it weren't for the cages, the fences, the chains and other devices we use to keep them against their will. They would not go willingly into the slaughterhouse, and in fact, if you have ever been to one you would know that animals actively fight against being slaughtered once they realize that is their fate.
I think that as sentient beings, animals have the right to be left alone. We should give them enough room to live their lives, instead of encroaching on and destroying their natural habitats. And we should stop breeding animals for the sole purpose of being our slaves.
If we want to have a true symbiotic relationship with another being, then that other being must be (MUST BE) free to choose. They must be free to come or go and to engage in the relationship of their own free will.