Understanding Animal Rights, Veganism and the Animal Movement

Hi Gary.

I noticed something that you might want to explain. You have either notified your friends to come sing your praises, or you have a handful of accounts here to do it yourself.

These people: Marji, Word Star, Tim Marshal, James, Mylene, and Karin Hilpisch only come here to comment on your posts? How unusual is that?

Let them know that I will take their comments with the grain of salt they warrant, since they are suspect as independent sources of commentary.

I get the not eating meat and not wearing leather, but is eating eggs, drinking milk, and wearing wool so bad? No animal dies from it. Chickens are laying unfertilized eggs anyway. Cows are giving milk anyway. In fact, a milk cow would probably feel very swollen if nobody milked it. Do farmers still milk a cow that has to nurse a calf? No. Wool is just a sheep's fur . It grows back, correct? Besides, sheep shearing probably keeps burrs, branches, bugs and barbed wire from snaring a sheep and otherwise harming a sheep.

Word Star said, ''Would you say that when Nazi's capture Anne Frank that it would be sexism to offer the commandant sex in exchange for her release?''

It is not clear to me why someone would refer to Anne Frank and the Nazis as an example of what is taken to be a valid analogy. Because it seems to be suited to immunize the argument in favour of sexist campaigns against criticism? In any event, it is beyond me how someone can possibly see any kind of analogy between the scenario of a woman's bargaining sexual services for her life – or the life of someone else – if she has no choice, and the systematic instrumentalization of a society 's commodification of women 's sexuality by organizations which claim to do it ''for the animals ,'' while the only effect from this that can be seen is the gain of publicity which results in increased fund-raising. Putting aside the absurdity of analogizing these two situations, the difference with regard to sexism is that the former case reflects it, as Gary has pointed out, while it is reinforced in the latter case.

That is precisely the reason why sexist campaigns cannot have the effect claimed by those who defend them, i.e., to get people to realize that animal exploitation is morally wrong. How can, as a logical matter, a campaign that presents one group of sentient beings as objects of sexual consumption in an affirmative way get anyone to realize that using another group of sentient beings as objects of culinary consumption – or treating them as things for other purposes – is morally objectionable? But this realization, i.e. the paradigm shift, by a critical mass of the population, is the only way in which the abolition of animal exploitation can be achieved. Anything else is only suited to perpetuate it.

As for the idea that welfarism convinces people to go vegan , it is clearly false. Again if that were true we should have seen a gradual shift toward veganism - but we have not. And even if welfarism were somehow conducive to veganism it would not follow that we should promote it, for it would still be morally problematic, and furthermore, it would still be less conducive to veganism than clear and unequivocal vegan education .

In sum: Let's put all our time and resources into clear and unequivocal vegan education. Let's reject the national animal organizations like PeTA and HSUS, none of which promote veganism and abolition. Instead, let's build a grass roots movement which can educate the public about the moral and environmental disaster that is institutionalized animal exploitation.

As Gary Francione has said, welfarist reform is morally problematic in that if animals have the right not to be used at all (which they do) then neither we nor anyone else can justify promoting any animal use, including of course regulated animal use. When self-identifying animal rights advocates promote welfarism/"happy" meat , therefore, they grievously undermine their own premises, giving the impression that veganism is not a moral imperative after all.

The welfarist counter-arguments are various, but mostly they center on the following idea: that regulation, although it is immoral, is necessary because it benefits animals in some way as a practical matter, either by leading to abolition, or by reducing animal suffering, or by convincing people to go vegan , or, finally, by giving us something to do in the interim between now and abolition (which, so this line of argument goes, is necessary both because we can't abolish animal use immediately and because the rights approach is utopian in that it is unable to prescribe any concrete guidance). And of course these claims are not mutually exclusive but rather combine to create the ideology that is known as new welfarism.

Now all of these claims are false and empty. To take the first point first, if welfarism lead to abolition, given that we've had welfarism for 200 years now, we should have seen a gradually shift away from the notion that animals are property to the notion that animals are moral persons with rights, manifested in a gradual reduction in animal use. The problem is that welfarism is correlated, not with a reduction, but rather with a massive increase in animal use. As Francione has put it, we are now using more animals in more horrific way than at any time in human history.

Some people claim that welfarism is only correlated with an increase in animal use, that there is no causal connection. But that is besides the point. For even though hundreds of millions (perhaps billions) of dollars has been spent on welfarism, there is still no evidence that welfarism can effect an overall reduction in animal use. If welfarism cannot effect an overall reduction in animal use (which it cannot), then it is of no use to the animal rights movement, for it cannot lead to abolition. More importantly, however, there is in fact plenty of evidence showing that welfarism does increase social acceptance of animal use (by making people feel more comfortable about consuming animal products). In any event, if would be difficult if not impossible to give an explanation as to why telling the public that animal use is being made more "humane", that they can be moral good people by consuming "humane" meat, and that veganism is "fanatical", would not make them feel better about consuming animal products.

The counter-argument runs as follows: granted, welfarism has not lead to abolition, but it can and does reduce suffering. But, first, as Francione has argued, although we could in fact improve animal treatment, it is very unlikely that we will do so, for animals are property; second, welfarism reforms do not, as an empirical matter, reduce suffering (see Peaceful Prairie's The Free Range Myth: http://www.peacefulprairie.org/freerange1.html ); and, third, even contemporary welfarist measures - as for example CAK and group housing for sows - are linked with increased exploitative efficiency. And if someone were to reply that we should support welfarist reforms even though they increase exploitative efficiency, because they also reduce suffering, then, as well as the above, I would say that there is simply no need to promote reforms that increase exploitative efficiency, as industry will implement such reforms itself, independently of the animal movement, as its reason for existence is (it should go without saying) to increase its profitability.

As for the idea that abolitionism is utopian, that is clearly untrue. Abolitionism prescribes concrete guidance: veganism, by means of which we can shift the moral paradigm. The problem is not that veganism is utopian; the problem is that the animal movement refuses to engage in the myriad opportunities for vegan education , ranging from conversations with people, to group discussion and lectures, to stalls and demonstrations, to cooking classes and blog essays. Instead, the animal movement does nothing but collect donations which it spends, not on promoting veganism and animal rights, but rather on welfarist campaigns and antic-based activism which simply brings in more donations - and so on. Moreover and, ironically, welfarism, which is correlated with a massive increase in animal use, has proved itself to be anything but pragmatic, at least for the perspective of veganism and abolition.

It is unreasonable to place a human and an animal on the same plane of advancement, morality or intelligence. This artificial equalization is insulting to humans and wholly unrecognized by animals in that there is no gratitude. There is no gratitude because they are unable to show complex emotions and are unaware of their own mortality.

I also find it sneaky to engage in preemptive curtailing of opinion.

"Speciesism is morally objectionable because, like racism , sexism , and heterosexism, it links personhood with an irrelevant criterion."

This is an example. It sets up the false notion that anyone who wishes to argue against your premises must automatically be a sexist , racist , heterosexist. I resent the implication that because I like to eat meat , I also hang black people, and beat my women - Or any gay man unlucky enough to cross my path... Many people would not challenge your claims on the fear of being so labeled. That is not how arguments are won, but many still try this shady technique.