lördag 19 april 2014

Why Abolitionist vegans oppose the promotion of welfare reforms

A more correct analogy would be:
The slave welfare movement goes to the slave owners and say that we have done research that proves that slaves perform better if they are not hyper confined. Thus we can increase the efficiency and our profit by making laws that give the slaves more space.
Lets make a deal:
You make a statement that you will implement these laws within 10 years. Create a new label which is called "Compassionate slavery". We will market this and call it a victory and get more donations. You will get publicity and an increased sell of your slave labor products.

Yes, I would object to this. Because I think it is an immoral sell-out of a sentient beings interest. We have no right to promote other persons exploitation. Not as the end goal and not as a means to reach an end. I don't believe in the utilitarian philosophy, which would allow the murder of one person if you can maximize everyone's happiness and minimize everyone's suffering by doing this.
Furthermore, it is a complete myth that promoting "happy exploitation"/reforms leading to "happier exploited animals" will lead to a vegan world. I see regularly the completely opposite effect when an animal organization applauds the industry for exploiting animals through "free range" instead of cage hens, etc. Whole Foods cooperate with sell out-"animal organizations" because they know it leads them to an increased profit.

We are not objecting industry making reforms. We are objecting that the animal welfare movement applauds and paints exploitation as morally acceptable.

This is a good website where you can learn more: www.abolitionistapproach.com


In a sexist society advocating for "humane rape" will make the public more comfortable about violence towards woman.

In a speciesist society advocating for eggs from "free range hens" will make the public more comfortable about violence towards animals.

I regularly see how nonvegans are made to feel proud, happy and satisfied over themselves for e.g. consuming eggs from "free range hens", when an animal organization is applauding the industry of implementing an animal welfare reform.

This is why I say that promoting an animal welfare reform sends either the explicit or the implicit message that animal exploitation is morally desirable.

Just like promoting "humane rape" sends the moral message that rape is morally acceptable.

As I said - it is my daily experience that nonvegans interpret the campaigns of Animal Welfare-organizations in this way.

And because I am not an utilitarian I wouldn't advocate a capaign that sends an implicit moral message of either exploitation against women, nor exploitation against animals.

I don't find it justified to exploit one animal or to promote the exploitation of one animal in order to save 10 animals or 1 million animals. Neither do I think that this ever would be the outcome of exploiting another sentient being.
And I don't think that promoting speciesism will lead more people to go vegan.

Would you advocate animal welfare reforms if that could save 1 million animals:

The same answer that I would give as an answer to the following question:
"A murderer says to you. If you murder this person I will not kill 1 million people. If you refuse to murder this person, I will kill 1 million people."
I would say: No!

I am not a utilitarian. I don't justify exploitation or the promotion of exploitation.

There is a good reason why Whole Foods supposedly are implementing "animal welfare reforms". To promote "happy meat", etc., increases the sales. This is obviously not to the advantage of the animals. Good article for anyone following this debate who hasn't already read it: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-response-to-petas-position-on-happy-or-humane-exploitation/


I believe that the promotion of animal welfare reform doesn't create a reduction of animal exploitation. I believe that it leads to consumers that are more comfortable with promoting animal exploitation and that thus it will lead to an overall increase in the exploitation of animals.

I agree with this: "Why does anyone believe that welfare reform will lead to abolition? If we look at the history of animal welfare reform, we see that most reforms are minor, most are not even enforced, and most actually increase production efficiency and provide economic benefits to producers. We have had the animal welfare paradigm for 200 years now and we are exploiting more animals now in more horrific ways than at any time in human history.

Why does anyone believe that promoting “happy” exploitation is going to lead to the abolition of exploitation? Use your common sense. “Happy” exploitation won’t lead anywhere but to a public that feels better about particular forms of animal exploitation. If that were not the case, the animal exploitation industries, in partnership with the large animal welfare corporations, would not be investing all the resources that they are investing in “happy” exploitation campaigns and labels."

PETA is promoting the gassing of chickens

Inga kommentarer:

Skicka en kommentar