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.
Popular VideoThis young teenage singer was shocked when Keith Urban invited her on stage at his concert. A few moments later, he made her wildest dreams come true.
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 agree that that 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.
Popular VideoThis young teenage singer was shocked when Keith Urban invited her on stage at his concert. A few moments later, he made her wildest dreams come true:
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.