måndag 5 maj 2014

Abolitionist veganism - articles, arguments and refutations of objections

If you are not vegan, I recommend these resourcess:
and www.vegankit.com

[Following articles are clickable and will lead you to another blog post. Open the links in a new window if you want to navigate yourself back: ]


Recommended pages

Animal resuce/shelters


Introduction to Abolitionist veganism and anti-speciesism

It is wrong to use animals
Does riding horses harm/exploit them?
Why research of cultured meat is morally wrong

Single issue campaigns

The problem of focusing on anti-fur-campaigns instead of all animal use

Boycotting Air France for shipping monkeys to laboratories; but not SAS for serving animal foods?

Why we shouldn't wish violence and death upon those consuming animal foods

Halal slaughter vs. ordinary slaughter

Single issue-campaigns, such as anti-fur campaigns, vs campaigns against all animal exploitation

Adopting animals
Only veganism help animals - We don't have any right to say that one death is worse than another one.

Answering objections against Abolitionist veganism

How First world-choices and consumerism effect the exploitation of humans and animals, poverty, starvation

About Gary Yourofsky, and wishing violence on others

Why vegans shouldn't hate and do namecalling against non-vegans

Vegan reply to But 'There is a correlation between advocating Animal welfare reform and number of people going vegan'

Vivisection happens because of demand by non-vegans

Why do people attack Gary Francione instead of discussing his ideas?

Take your opportunities to educate others about veganism

Advocating veganism on the streets and vegan stalls

Vegan reply: But wearing fur is worse compared to wearing leather

Abolitionist Approach vs. Welfarism

[These links are linked to a Google Docs-document. If you scroll down, or you use the search-function, you can also find the text below in this blog post.]

Single issue: Green peace campaign of “sustainable fishing”
Animal testing and ethical arguments. Ethical should be primary
“Fake” meat, etc?
No such thing as ‘species victory’
Not to use violent word to against those who exploit animals
Single issue campaigns and racism, anti-whale-campaign etc.
Veganism and carriage horses
Response to people against rescuing animals
Welfare reform?


Our prayers to end the violence in our world are empty if we are nonvegan. How can God answer them when we ourselves refuse to end the violence we have complete control over ending?

Don't give thanks to God for nonvegan meals; give apologies to animals. Then, act on your apology by going vegan.

To follow up on my recent status updates where I used the words "God" and "prayer." Oh nooo!

First, some comments complained that I was mixing religion with veganism. Wrong. As I explained to one commenter, it takes my breath away that you (and many others) can't see the difference between God and religion. If we can't properly identify the source of moral concern (which can be secular or nonsecular), we have a serious problem in advocating morality.

Second, it is really sad that a mere mention of the word "God" gets people into a tizzy. While I am not into organized religion, I don't care (at all) whether someone's moral concern comes from God, religion, organized religion, spirituality, or whatever; I care if someone has moral concern.

Third, when we concern ourselves with the source of someone's moral concern, we miss an opportunity to advocate veganism. We should, instead, concern ourselves with educating others as to how their moral concern (regardless of its source) necessitates veganism.

Fourth, if you are not already closed minded about this "debate," I encourage you to read this phenomenal essay:

Vegan advocacy
Sarah (Minnesota, United States) took the TAVS Challenge! Sarah said:

"Every time you encounter a nonvegan, you have an opportunity to educate her/him about veganism. You don't have to have a stall or be leafleting to take the TAVS Challenge. For example, today, I went to the store to get bobby pins, and while I was checking out, I asked the checkout person if I could give her a leaflet about helping animals. She said yes. Then, I said, "So, it's about the idea that no one wants to hurt animals. And no one has to! We can live healthily and happily without consuming animal products. The best way to help animals is to go vegan." I was friendly and smiled, and I told her the leaflet explains more."

Help shift the paradigm from nonveganism to veganism by taking the TAVS Challenge! Learn more, and RSVP for the next TAVS Challenge here:

Abolitionist Vegan Society Challenges

Animal welfare reform vs Abolitionist Approach
To those who support animal welfare:

It’s not, as many of you claim, a choice of helping animals “today” or “now,” or letting them suffer while we achieve a much greater number of vegans.

It is a choice of whether we are going to:

A. put resources into expensive campaigns that go on for years and, if they don’t fail completely:

* result in some modification that is then supposedly phased in over more years and usually never enforced anyway; and
* even if implemented and enforced, result in, at best, a de minimis change akin to putting padding on a water board; and
* do nothing to change thinking about the moral status of animals and, indeed, reinforce the status of animals as commodities or things that exist for human use;
* have the counterproductive effect of making people more comfortable about consuming animals; and
* make animal advocates partners with institutional exploiters whom they ask animal advocates to support


B. engage in creative, nonviolent advocacy that promotes veganism as the moral baseline, and that will reduce demand and effect a paradigm shift in our thinking about animals.

Every second of time and cent spent on doing A is a second less or a cent less spent on doing B.

A and B are different, and mutually exclusive, ways of thinking about animal ethics.

Neither A nor B is immediate; neither helps animals “now,” and both involve incremental efforts. The question is which you choose to do.


If you are not vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself.

The World is Vegan!

Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University

ry should end and who refused to participate in its regulation, and the regulationists, who sought to make slavery more "humane."

Second, once some group is determined to have moral status (i.e., they are no longer regarded as chattel), then it makes sense to talk about incremental improvement. While they are still chattel, incremental "improvements," legitimize oppression and reassure people that the system can function morally, which is not the case. I would suggest that anyone who is paying attention can see that the "happy exploitation" movement is doing *exactly* what it is intending to do: make people feel more comfortable about continuing to consume animals. If you think that leads to abolition, you are dreaming.

Third, as I argued as far back as 1993, most animal welfare reforms *increase* production efficiency" and will be undertaken by industry in any event (and would certainly be offered by industry in response to a vegan movement). In other words, we don't have to have "animal people" promoting those "reforms," which are minor (at best) in any event.

Fourth, I respectfully ask that you respect the purpose of this page, which is to provide a safe space for those who accept veganism as a moral baseline. If you want to promote welfarism, have the courtesy to read what I have written and engage me in a substantive way. This is not a space for those who are into welfare to come and make uninformed statements. Thank you for your cooperation.
Gary L.Francione

Meatless monday

Domestic violence is on the rise.

We are realists and recognize that domestic violence will not be stopped overnight.

We need to do something to stop the suffering now.

We need to take baby steps and not be idealists.

Today is Beatless Monday. No physical abuse today.

Verbal and other forms of psychological abuse are not covered by this baby step.

Ridiculous? You bet it is. So is Meatless Monday.

Anti dolphin slaughter-campaign
Tänkvärd kommentar om delfinslakten:

I am getting lots and lots of emails about the Taija dolphin slaughter. Many of these messages accuse the Japanese of being being more brutal than other humans.

My blanket response in shorter and longer versions:

Shorter version: bullshit (no offense to bulls intended).

Longer version: What is going on in *every* country *every* minute of *every* day is no different from what is going on in Japan. It's all brutal and it's all horrible. Although many of us fetishize dolphins more than other animals, that's about *us* and not about *them*. There is no difference between a dolphin and a cow, pig, chicken, or fish. They are all sentient; they all suffer and they all value their lives.

A dolphin slaughter is *no* different morally than a chicken slaughter and I can assure you that a chicken slaughter is happening right now *wherever* you live and probably not far from where you live--certainly closer to you than is Japan. Have you ever been in a chicken "processing" plant? It's hideous. Have you ever seen the slaughter of cows and pigs? It's hideous. And all of those animals have horrific lives as well as brutal deaths.

No one group has a monopoly on exploitation and brutality. All humans are complicit in the victimization of nonhumans. To say that the Japanese are worse than anyone else is racist/xenophobic/ethnocentric nonsense.

What is going on in Japan is horrible--just as what is going on in the Americas, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and everywhere else is horrible.

We need a revolution of the heart. Desperately. And we *all* need it.

Single issue campaigns
Let's start by focusing on your expression "good people." I am not saying that there are not "good people" who buy into the promotion of SICS that are pushed by the big groups. Yes, I think that single-issue campaigns are problematic for a number of reasons. I also have a hard time seeing all the victories you seem to think there are. If by my book, you mean Eat Like You Care, that book does not address this issue. You can read about that in Animals as Persons, The Animal Rights Debate, and Rain Without Thunder. There are lots of essays on my site www.abolitionistapproach.com. But read what I wrote above: if we are going to shift the paradigm, we need to build a vegan movement. The alternative is something like the anti-fur campaign, which is a monumental failure: decades of work, millions (if not more) dollars and the fur industry is stronger than it's ever been. Single issue campaigns make money for groups. They do nothing for animals.

Sexism in animal rights movement
: I think that one of the worse things that ever happened to the "movement" was the idea that sexism and misogyny would "help the animals." That's complete bullshit (no offense to bulls) on many levels. As long as we are continuing to commodify women and treat them like meat, we'll treat animals like meat. The problem is the commodification of the other. I don't give a damn how long you've been an "animal activist," I don't want that nonsense here. Martin Luther king would not have promoted a "I'd rather go naked than sit in the back of the bus" campaign in the civil rights context. I have no interest in promoting it in the animal context. So please respect the TOU of the page. Thanks.

Single issue campaigns
“The problem with this is that is makes nonvegans who don’t wear fur feel they are ‘compassionate’ towards other animals, while continuing to do exactly what they do. This is the biggest problem with SICs. People clearly think it’s more cruel to wear fur than wear animal skin with no fur, wool, silk, wear other parts of animals, eat them and what they produce, go to zoos, use products tested on animals etc. In most cases they don’t think their participation in the exploitation of other animals in a critical way at all, so by criticising people wearing fur they have one more reason to continue being as they are. It is hypocritical by construction to put the shame on some in order to feel good about oneself. It normalises all other uses of nonhuman animals which are not condemned by PETA SICs, i.e. it normalises other animal use itself. If it was a step to veganism, then if you went into that club and you talked with the owner of the club as well as with the people entering it and who liked the ‘no fur’ rule about their other uses of nonhuman animals they would understand and they would want to vegan. But the most likely scenario is that they will call you a fanatic and they will get offended for being compared to ‘fur wearers’.

I wondered why the owner of the club would agree with this, PETA backed, campaign (i.e. how the campaigner convinced the club owner for this), but it became so obvious: it is definitely a more famous club now. Win-win for the club and PETA, but a usual they forgot some most important ones from their wins…”

Another post about single issue campaigns
A Recent Exchange about Single Issue Campaigns
Person A: How would a abolition vegan voice their opinion against a grey hound racing track opening in their local area please? Its on my door step.. I feel I can't do nothing.. would you simply talking about nonviolent vegan education at the race track. I feel like the racing staff will simply laugh at me for being so out numbered. I have been asked to join the campaign and feel I should at least do something to express my views. Any thoughts be appreciated.
Sarah: I have a serious question for you. How is a grey hound racing track opening worse than a nonvegan restaurant opening?
Person A: It isn't any worse.
Sarah: Ok. Here is another question for you. Please answer honestly -- would you protest a nonvegan restaurant opening?
Person A: I wouldn't of no. I take photos of fresh fish stores, shoe shops and steakhouses etc.. then post and talk about them on fb and sometimes when I'm talking to people on the streets... but to answer your question.. up until this very moment I wouldn't have no.
Sarah: Right! So, most people wouldn't even think to protest a nonvegan restaurant opening. That is because we are used to valuing "food" animals less than "dogs" ("racing" animals) or whales ("marine park" animals), etc. So, by protesting a grey hound racing track opening, do you think that might be speciesist?
Person A: Yes totally and clearly.. and me trying to help some animals (in this case racing dogs) when one can't help all animals (food animals) doesn't feel so right now... even though more of the general public will sympathize with the dogs more so than say pigs.. Is very much speciesist... your fast and effective
Sarah: Here's the greatest part of it -- by using that *same* time and energy to go promote veganism away from single issue campaigns, you *are* helping the dogs! Dogs are included in veganism.
To learn more about why abolitionist vegans are opposed to single issue campaigns in favor of creative nonviolent vegan advocacy, please listen to this TAVS Audio Episode:

Single issue -Green peace about sustainable fishing.
Written by Jonathan H.
“I first saw the Greenpeace ‘Tuna’ petition a few days ago and began to construct some ideas about it as I’d originally planned to include it in a blog article. Since then, I’ve been contacted by both vegan and non-vegan friends about it – all asking me if they should sign.

Rather than say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, I’ve chosen to explain what the petition means to me, and why it isn’t something that *I* (as a vegan) would sign. I’ve decided to post that here for semi-public consumption, rather than regurgitate it on private messages to people. It’ll probably make a blog article at some point with some other examples. Anyone reading this can make up his or her own mind. I have no desire to enter into another long & drawn out debate – let me be crystal clear – these are *my* thoughts and *my* reasons for not signing.

The petition:

“I demand that you remove unsustainable Oriental and Pacific tuna from Tesco shelves across the UK. O&P is caught using Fish Aggregation Devices, which cause indiscriminate bycatch of fish like sharks and rays, along with tuna. FAD caught tuna is appearing back on the high street, and it undermines the commitment to ocean protection that Tesco and all the other major UK supermarkets and tuna brands have adopted.”

The petition (to my brain):

A non-vegan organisation (Greenpeace) who don’t encourage Veganism as the moral baseline (which would most likely do more for the environment than any other move humans-as-a-species could make) are asking a non-vegan company (Tesco) to keep killing, but kill slightly less of some other species whilst they are doing it, to ensure that they can make their killing sustainable in the future.

That’s how I read the petition.

Note: I accept that Greenpeace are seeing this from a conservation perspective and their desire for sustainable fish catches clearly drives this. That said, from a vegan perspective the most sustainable way to catch fish is to catch none. It’s from this perspective that I approach such petitions.

Now, as for why *I* won’t go near it…

Reason 1: They are all ‘species a’
I see no difference between the tuna, the rays and the sharks, because, morally, there is no difference - none at all. It does not matter to me *why* species a, b and c die (in this context) since it is all needless – it’s no nobler a way to die for species a (the Tuna) because they end up as food on a plate or as bycatch as opposed to species b (Sharks) and/or c (Rays) who end up chucked back over the side (or possibly still sold). They have all died needlessly gasping for air on a boat deck (with or without their heads bashed in) as a result of human greed. Thus, to me, they are all effectively ‘species a’ – killed because humans want to consume non-humans. With that assumption, I ask myself “So, what is this petition wanting me to support?” It’s asking me to support an initiative that still keeps killing, but kills less (assuming of course that the change to ‘sustainable fishing’ doesn’t bring efficiency gains which actually increases the killing of Tuna). So, my first reason is purely that it is a petition that wants to perpetuate (but refine) killing.

Reason 2: Speciesism
Is it better that less animals die, meaning it is OK to sign this? The simplistic answer is yes – less death is better than more death. That approach ignores the Elephant in the room – Speciesism. By signing this petition (in my head) I might be saying ‘well, as long as less animals die, that’s good’. In reality, I’m contributing to the idea that it’s OK to kill Tuna. I might not think it, but that’s the end goal of this campaign – to still kill Tuna. This campaign doesn’t want Tesco to stop funding the killing of Tuna, or even kill less Tuna, it just says kill them in a ‘nicer’ way (i.e. so no sharks & rays get hurt). When one puts one’s name to a petition like this, there isn’t box that says ‘I accept this but with this caveat of x,y,z’. It simply records that the signee wants the sharks and rays saved, but the Tuna, well, they can die. Potentially the more people that sign it, the word spreads, the more sign it, further spreading the idea with the general (non-vegan) public that killing Tuna is OK. Further down the line, there is further advocacy needed to try and de-program brains from Tuna because campaigns (like this) have previously said its fine to eat them as long as they are line caught. What vegan hasn’t had to deal with “well this Tuna is OK because I made sure the tin said ‘Dolphin-friendly’” many, many times in the past? Speciesism, right there.

Reason 3: Being part of the problem
Let’s assume I signed this.
I then look at myself in the mirror and have the following conversation…
“I am fighting for abolition of all animal use”
“How have I moved this forward today (or at the very least, not moved it backwards)?”
“I’ve signed a petition that both legitimises and sanctions the killing of Tuna in a different way to how it was done before. I’ve helped say it’s OK to kill.”
That isn’t a conversation I would want to have. I do not see how I could see myself as anything other than being part of the problem. By not signing it and educating on veganism, I’m proactively showing no support for this campaign and doing something about the current attitudes towards *all* species, not just species that, to the general public (because of campaigns like this), are considered less worthy (i.e. the Tuna). To me, this is a petition that says ‘kill slightly fewer sentient sea creatures’ – the central point is that a vote for this petition is a vote to continue killing *many* sentient sea creatures. It’s a vote for ‘acceptable killing’. It’s a vote for ‘acceptable animal use’.

I hope that this has been useful to those that asked my opinion. Now, go and read a book - it’s World Book Day after all.
(I’ll be re-reading ‘Eat Like You Care: An examination of the Morality of Eating Animals’ by Gary L. Francione and Anna Charlton)”
By Jonathan Hughes

The failure of the anti-fur campaign
The fur trade appears to be booming. This is a depressing fact. Whilst fur farming may be no more on UK soil, this hasn't stopped the resurgence of it as a 'fashion item'.

After decades of campaigns regarding fur, this product is still firmly a massive money spinner. There is a telling quote in the linked article by Fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld: "In a meat-eating world, wearing leather for shoes and even clothes, the discussion of fur is childish." Upsettingly, I think he has a point. A real point.

Has fur campaigning moved veganism onto the agenda (in a substantial way)? I'm not sure that it has. Has a plethora of single issue campaigns ultimately gotten rid of fur? Clearly not. Will single issue campaigning get rid of it? I have to conclude, very unlikely, given what we have seen thus far.

Returning to Karl Lagerfeld's brutal point, how can we really convince people that fur is bad, when leather is so widely used and meat so widely eaten? Personally, I don't believe we can. We *may* have short term success in fetishizing certain species (see Angora recently), but use and abuse comes back. It moves to another species. It moves underground or country where (potentially) anything goes. We don't have the farms on UK soil. That doesn't seem to matter. We are not a closed island. Banning imports? Very unlikely to happen - maybe if all fur bearing animals became endangered like Rhinos or Elephants, but not before then and that hasn't exactly been successful for those species.

How can we try and convince a non-vegan world to save *some* non-humans?

I don't believe we can, given this current non-vegan state of the world. Without the paradigm shift which results in non-humans being considered as persons (and not property), we stand little chance of making lasting changes.

Abolitionism can be a tough philosophy to follow - I understand that. There's certainly criticism of it. I understand that too. There's not necessarily the instant gratification (other than making more Abolitionists of course!) that one might gain on a demo, for example. I appreciate the feeling of 'doing something' is a buzz. That said, educating solely on veganism and turning people to the ethical side is a majorly good feeling!

The question though that I ask myself is 'what lasting change(s) are these campaigns really having?' By choosing certain species to save we legitimise the killing of others - not purposely - I don't believe for one minute that any vegan on any non-human-species-specific demo/protest/rally wants any other species harmed. (Moreover, they are some of the most caring, compassionate people I've ever met). But the world isn't vegan. Most people don't think like vegans. Most will think 'save the badger, gimme a steak'. Until we focus on *all* non-humans with equal measure, I believe we are trying to run through treacle.

Make vegans. Educate. Fight equally for *all* species. Then, just maybe, the world will be vegan. If you want it.

Further reading:



Halal slaughter
Opposing one way of slaughter means believing that there is an acceptable way to kill others. There isn’t any. That’s why there is no ‘humane slaughter’. People who oppose to e.g. halal slaughter should go vegan if they really care about the suffering of animals who are killed. They either go vegan to stop slaughter and use all together, or they perpetuate speciesism, injustice, use and slaughter. Vegans who oppose certain kinds of slaughter ironically promote other animals’ use and slaughter. And to show how misguided they are, the fact is that the ways animals are killed in farms cause the same suffering to the animals (stunning does not work half of the times). The whole ‘humane slaughter’ is nothing but a marketing tool for humans to continue one of their most atrocious and needless habits.

Self commodification (e.g. stripping) not moral
Defending stripping in a patriarchal society doesn't help women, it helps patriarchy. The idea of consent and agency in a society where women are treated as things misses a crucial element of this specific type of oppression.

Moral schiozophrenia is not ableist
there is something pejorative about moral blindness, when it is a state of facts and not in any way a judgment,

f “moral schizophrenia” is ableist, then so is the expression “drugs are a cancer on society” or “our polices in the Middle East are shortsighted” or “we are blind to the consequences of our actions” or “when it comes to poverty, our proposed solutions suffer from a poverty of ambition.” "

On Petitions:
Every single morning, I wake up to multiple PMs and emails asking me to promote various petitions. And I usually get some more during the day.
Forget about it.
I think that petitions are worthless. Actually, I think they are worse than worthless because they make people think that they are actually doing "something" by clicking their approval to this or that petition when, in fact, this is just the illusion of activism. Most petitions focus on single issues and reinforce the idea that some animals are more morally important than others or that we should somehow "reform" animal exploitation. And many petitions are just fundraising vehicles for bloated animal charities.
If you want to do petitions, that's your business. I don't. So you can send these requests but I just delete them. The only petition in which I am interested is a petition against petitions.

Animal testing and ethical argument

It’s like saying that a factory should not use slaves because it’s not economically profitable. What does this do to end human right violations and racism? Nothing. The same people’s rights will just be violated in other ways than by being slaves in that factory or in factories.
It’s like saying that people should go ‘vegan’ because the plant diet is healthier.
It’s like telling them that if the animal experiments did help invent medications and therapies, it would be right to use them or at least it should be considered (since the ethical argument can’t stand alone as an *argument*).

In what sense will convincing nonvegans that animal experiments don’t help to find ‘cures’ motivate them go vegan? You’ll say that if we present the ethical argument at the same time they will consider it after being convinced that animal experiments ‘don’t work’. But that never happens because you enforce their speciesism in the first place:
Animal experiments are not a basic need of humans like eating is, and even if it was we should experiment on consenting humans, not unconsenting nonhumans. Immorality is the cause, fabric, and wrapping of animal experiments; they are immoral *however* you see them regardless their ‘effectiveness’. Still we have to present that they are not beneficial to find ‘cures’ as an **argument** to awaken humans on *animal rights*? This is always the result (or something of this nature): “If my daughter was dying and I could kill an animal with my bare hands to save her, I would do it”. Now, go convince him that killing ‘an animal’ won’t save his daughter. You can’t because his self-respect depends on defending speciesism vs ‘harming’ a loved or other dying humans. The problem is that ‘killing an animal’ is legal in the first place (like killing one human to save another is illegal), but they won’t understand why it should be illegal unless they concentrate on the ethical argument. But they won’t’ concentrate on the ethical argument if they expect you to convince them that animal experiments never help humans. You *can’t* convince them because there will always have to be someone to be experimented on, and nonhumans will be their first choice without second thoughts, and they don’t want to be convinced as I said.

Now, unlike what some of you may think, I am not saying that we should not present at all the position that animal experiments don’t help humans. And I am certainly not saying that non nonhuman animal experiments should not be developed as intensively as possible. I believe we have to present some proof why they are not beneficial to human health since it is true and it dismisses one argument that supports their claims in their mind, and (politely) weakening their feeling or righteousness helps . And we should encourage other than nonhuman animals experiment methods research (the term ‘alternative methods’ implies that animal experiments are a choice, or even a primary one depending on how a nonvegan reads it). But we should not present these as one of the two (one being the ethical one) **arguments** that animal experiments are wrong. There is a world of difference between these two ways. We should always say that even if animal experiments did work for humans – which they don’t—we should still not accept them. My objection is not in retrieving such information and use it as such, but in using this information as a *reason* why humans should not support animal experiments. And once you start on this path of analysis over analysis and document after document, forget about the ethical argument: nonvegans will always want you to convince them 100% of the ineffectiveness of all experimental methods before they consider ‘the animals’. It is speciesist to do so, and as such it is negative to our purpose.

The position that we should go along with what the speciesist (and in general discriminative) part of nonvegans like hearing, because that’s what they ‘understand it better’, is the welfare position.
There is a good way and the bad way to say one factually correct thing. We should spend some more though on what the best what to say something is, and not use it the way the source of information told us to. These sources are usually speciesist, and there is a more effective way to do things, when we think what that is, anyway. I’ve seen this many times: once I get into the science of things and stay there to answer all their questions , I am seen as a biased fundamentalist. When I talk about the ethical argument I get their attention. And *that* will lead into a conversation on veganism, otherwise you are promoting a SIC. Let them get that information against their conviction that animal experiments work for humans, but let’s discuss the ethical argument with them and veganism, so that the vegan argument will stay in their minds in the end (they will have the reference to read if they really want to review their false knowledge).

“Although animals are often used when ethical or practical issues have precluded the study of humans, the evolving scientific understanding of the complexity of animals and of their social and psychological needs underscores longstanding ethical concerns about their use in laboratory science."
This is a very speciesist thing to say. First, it implicitly validates the logic under which animal are used when humans ‘can’t’ be used. Second, is validates experiments on nonhumans to ‘discover’ their “social and psychological needs”. Third, it validates the logic under which we have to prove that nonhumans have their social and psychological needs of an acceptable degree in order not to be used as objects.

PCRM and BUAV are welfare minded and give speciesist arguments, with BUAV being a SIC itself, and PCRM having fallen in the SIC trap too. They are not groups to present their arguments as abolitionists. We can use some of their external recourses, or the PCRM’s scientific research if and when necessary having the ethical argument as our argument, but not promote them or give them as examples of groups helping animal rights.

Domestication and its problems
The problem, Jennifer, is if you agree that breeding for companionship is not justifiable then you have a world without "pets". (Oh how I hate that word.) Dogs and cats exist in the wild perfectly fine without us. Domesticated dogs and cats are here only because we bring them into existence. We know that's wrong for human persons so it must be wrong for nonhuman persons too.

"Species" is a taxonomic designation. It has no moral significance. Species, classes, ethnicities, races, cultural groups--none of these matter morally. Only individuals matter morally.

1. The reasoning I have provided above (including the articles and essay) demonstrates  that it is unjustifiable and speciesist to domesticate animals. They are domesticated. We can stop the domestication by quit breeding animals.

2. You can be the best dog owner you possibly can be and it doesn't justify domestication; and it doesn't justify perpetuating the very system that allows all kind of animal abuse, killing of healthy animals, etc. Even if you choose to treat an animal in a good way, it still doesn't morally justify that you perpetuate the very system that allows animals to be used as property that can be killed at any moment.


I see the two dogs that I care take care off (1 adopted and 1 that I bought before that I realized that it is wrong to domesticate animals) as my companions. It doesn't change the fact that they are "property" according to the law.
I dearly love the dogs I take care off.

I agree with this person: "My partner and I live with five rescued dogs. All five would be dead if we did not adopt them. We love them very much and try very hard to provide them the best of care and treatment. (And before anyone asks, all seven of us are vegans!) You would probably not find two people on the planet who enjoy living with dogs more than we do.

But if there were two dogs left in the universe and it were up to us as to whether they were allowed to breed so that we could continue to live with dogs, and even if we could guarantee that all dogs would have homes as loving as the one that we provide, we would not hesitate for a second to bring the whole institution of “pet” ownership to an end. We regard the dogs who live with us as refugees of sorts, and although we enjoy caring for them, it is clear that humans have no business continuing to bring these creatures into a world in which they simply do not fit."

I think it is a great deed to rescue animals. I think it is our responsibility. My posts are clearly directed against the act of domesticating/breeding animals.

Animals as property
This is one reason why you shouldn't domesticate animals and support that they are property under law. As long as you support this, there will be animals harmed and killed by their owners:

"When it comes to our moral and legal obligations to nonhuman animals, we suffer from “moral schizophrenia.” We claim to recognize that animals have morally significant interests in not suffering and that it is morally wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering on animals. Although we have laws that purport to reflect these moral sentiments, the overwhelming portion of the pain, suffering, and death that we impose on animals cannot be regarded as necessary in any sense. Our moral schizophrenia is related to the status of animals as property, which means that, as a practical matter, animal suffering will be regarded as necessary whenever it benefits human property owners. If we really are to take animal interests seriously, we can no longer treat animals as human resources. This does not mean that we must give animals the rights that we accord to humans, or that we cannot choose human interests over animal interests in situations of genuine conflict. Rather, we must recognize that animals have one right--the right not to be treated as property, and we cannot create conflicts between human and animals by using animals in ways in which we would never use any humans. As long as animals are human property, the principle of equal consideration can never apply to them (just as it could not apply to slaves), and animals will necessarily remain as nothing more than things that possess no morally significant interests. The theory presented applies to any animal that is sentient and does not require that animals have any additional cognitive characteristics."

Long essay about this here: law.bepress.com/rutgersnewarklwps/art21/

Gary L Francione "Single-issue campaigns convey the false impression that some forms of exploitation are worse than other forms of exploitation. The anti-fur campaign is the prime example. There is no morally significant distinction between or among fur and leather and wool and silk.
All SI campaigns are open to the same criticism. A campaign that targets circuses, or one that targets circuses that use wild animals but not domesticated animals, sends the message that other forms of animal "entertainment" are okay. If a circus comes to town and you want to protest that event, at least be sure to be explicit in including in your literature and in all of your discussions with people that circuses are merely representative of the problem of animal exploitation as a general matter and that we ought to stop eating, wearing, and using animals altogether.
That is, deliver a vegan message in that context and it will help to mitigate (although not eliminate completely) the problems inherent in single-issue campaigns. Abolitionist veganism is not, as some incoherently suggest, a single-issue campaign; as I have developed that notion, is the rejection all consumption and use of sentient nonhumans for *any* purpose.
A campaign that boycotts a fast-food chain until it gasses chickens and then calls off the boycott when gassing is implemented sends the wrong message. A campaign that boycotts a state as long as wolves are shot from an airplane and then calls off the boycott when aerial shooting stops sends the wrong message.
As Victor Schonfeld, maker of the influential "The Animals Film" in 1982, stated recently on the BBC: the movement needs principles of crystal clarity. These single issue campaigns do nothing but confuse the public."

“Fake meat”, etc.
"I am of the view that we need to radically shift away from the idea of animals/animal products as "food." Although I am not interested in trying to dissuade people from eating "fake" animal products, I am increasingly concerned that "fake" stuff reinforces the notion that real animals/animal products are food and that we need these animal foods or substitutes for them.

A question: if someone had a lampshade that was not made from human skin but was made to look like it was made of human skin, would we just say, "hey, it's not real human skin, so it's okay?" The point I am trying to make is that if we really believe something is monstrously immoral, isn't there something odd about "fake" versions of it? Sure, the "fakes" are not immoral in the same way. A "fake" human skin lampshade is not the same as a real one, but there's something not right there."

I am of the view that we need to radically shift away from the idea of animals/animal products as "food." Although I am not interested in trying to dissuade peo...See More

No such thing as a species victory
The Abolitionist Vegan Society
If species is a morally arbitrary concept (which it is), then there is no such thing as a species victory. Indeed, to claim a speciesist victory is to directly engage in speciesism...especially in the context of a nonvegan world where demand is only shuffled from one species to another or one type of exploitation to another.

Similar to: "Gay white men get the right to marry. Success!"
Laurie Lyons
V is for VEGAN VICTORY! For all species...not just the ones we "hold dear"...We Enslave, We Exploit, We Eat, We Wear... Loving animals makes veganism easy! You cannot love animals while oppressing them- oppression is violence. And all oppressions intersect.


"Why do you object to protesting killing the dolphins at Taiji?"

I don't.
What I object to is the idea that dolphins matter more morally than chickens, cows, fish, pigs, etc. Killing dolphins at Taiji is no different than killing chickens at the processing plant 5 minutes from your house. Chickens, fish, and other nonhumans do not count less as a moral matter than dolphins.
What I object to are ethnocentric campaigns that characterize the Japanese as "barbaric." News flash: there is no difference between killing a dolphin and killing any other animal. As far as barbarous conduct is involved, the Japanese have no corner on the market and I regard the xenophobic comments about the Japanese as completely unacceptable.
What I object to is *any* campaign that seeks to target some form of animal exploitation as morally wrong but does not make it crystal clear that we cannot justify eating, wearing, or using animals--period. We need always to make it clear and explicit that recognizing that animals have moral significance requires that we go vegan.
What I object to is a "movement" that is reluctant to be clear that veganism must be a moral baseline and that fails to recognize that a grassroots vegan movement is the only thing that will shift the paradigm away from animals as property and toward animals as nonhuman moral persons.
What I object to is a "movement" that promotes the idea that we can be "compassionate" in our exploitation of animals, and that we should support "happy" exploitation.
What bewilders me is why so many "animal advocates" object to what the Japanese are doing but see that their non-vegan friends and relatives are morally indistinguishable from the Japanese.
What astounds me is how anyone can be so confused as to object to Taiji when they themselves are not vegan.
I hope this helps to clarify things for you as far as my position is concerned.

Chris Palmieri I think the institution of pet ownership is as exploitative as any other. This is why buying from breeders and pet stores falls under the category of non veganism.

However we obviously have an obligation to care for existing ones.

This relationship and the protections therein should be one of protection and caregiving similar to that of human children or dependent cognitively disabled humans in all applicable circumstances.

It would seem to me that taking sexual advantage of the aforementioned humans is wrong, even if no harm could come to them by doing so. I would assert it's the same for domestic refugees.

The question is if allowing an adopted animal to sexually pleasure you (which I assert is a form of exploitation) is not wrong then what other forms of non physically/mentally harmful exploitation are morally permissible?

Jeff Melton wrote: Some vegans say that PETA has done a mixture of both good and bad things in their work as an animal advocacy organization, and so they have neutral or mixed feelings toward them. But whether a neutral attitude toward an entity that does both good and bad things is appropriate depends on how bad the bad things are. If they're sufficiently bad then a neutral attitude isn't really appropriate. So if someone helps old ladies across the street, donates to charities, volunteers at the soup kitchen...but they rape their mom, then no one would take a neutral attitude toward that person; their bad action has "crossed the line," so to speak.

And such is the case with PETA. Yeah, you can find promotion of veganism (mixed with a hell of a lot of welfarism and promotion of less-than-veganism) on their Website, yeah they've made some good videos, yeah Ingrid Newkirk has written that there's no such thing as humanely raised and slaughtered meat, but...in addition to their sexist advertising and their welfarist campaigns and positions, PETA has killed healthy, adoptable animals, lots of them. It's not just inconsistent with their name (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), it's absolutely inexcusable, and anyone associated with PETA who has been involved with this ought to go to jail just as Michael Vick did. It's puzzling why they would do this. Part of the answer can be found here: http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=12153

Warning: This article contains pics of some of the healthy, adoptable animals PETA has killed. In addition, it contains a postcard from Ingrid Newkirk to Nathan Winograd (a leader of the no-kill shelter movement) stating that PETA does not believe that nonhuman animals have a right to life! This stunning admission ironically puts PETA, thought to be an animal rights organization, squarely on the opposite side of the "right to life" issue from the majority of Americans, at least insofar as animals considered "pets" are concerned.
All in all, the attitude PETA takes toward animals can only be described as speciesist. Not speciesist in the same way that most people are, as they don't make the same illogical distinction between "food" animals and "pets," but speciesist nonetheless. How else can we explain things like their giving an award to Temple Grandin for designing "more humane" slaughterhouses or their campaign to get KFC Canada to switch from suppliers that slit chickens' throats to suppliers that gas chickens to death instead, and their praise for KFC when they did so? Can you imagine a supposed human rights organization giving an award to Himmler for coming up with the bright idea of gassing Jews and other Holocaust victims instead of shooting them? And can you imagine our reaction if an organization supposedly devoted to the welfare of children advocated rounding up homeless children and "euthanizing" them? Because that's what PETA advocates, and engages in, for stray cats:
In short, the bad so far outweighs the good in PETA's case that not only does PETA not deserve either financial or rhetorical support from any genuine animal rights advocate, but our movement (and animals) would be far better off if they ceased to exist altogether.

Not to use violent word to against those who exploit animals
We are not going to change the hearts and minds of nonvegans by using abusive name-calling to express the pain we feel at witnessing the consequences of animal use. We can either choose to engender more violence by being violent ourselves, or we can channel our justified anger and frustration into creative nonviolent vegan education.
Everytime I read through my newsfeed, I am left with the one question:
are vegans *really* creating a peaceful world?

But it is a journey
Please read Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights comment on "Journeys", below. Here's mine:

The whole notion of "the journey" as it's promoted in popular literature isn't about just any old journey, like travelling from Melbourne to Sydney, but about "The Hero's Journey", drawn from the theme of many myths across many cultures where a hero achieves something commendable despite having to muster the courage and perseverance to overcome great risk and adversity. This is usually used as an analogy for the psychological process of personal growth or overcoming some significant life challenge. Employing this archetype to justify something as utterly unheroic and petty as prolonging and justifying our selfishness to indulge ourselves in whatever we like at the total expense of the vulnerable is the epitome of self-delusion. If you really want to be on the Hero's Journey, then focus on conquering your tendencies for lying to yourself and engaging in narcissism. There is *nothing* heroic about going vegan that requires a "journey". It's simply doing the minimum that we owe other sentient beings and it's easy. No personal glory, no great achievement; just stopping our bad behaviour, stopping the taking of what was never ours to begin with.
Furthermore, for me the use of the romanticised "journey" notion conjures up the sense of someone wanting to see themselves as the centre of a great drama, a bit like wanting to be the star of their own movie. It's all about them and everything and everyone else, including suffering animals, is just a prop to support the main action--"me". It seems very symptomatic of celebrity culture and reality TV, where everyone wants to be in the limelight for all the wrong reasons--in this case, their refusal to stop harming vulnerable sentient beings. That really is not something to want to draw attention to and celebrate; it's something to regret and cease, immediately.

Sea Shepherd
Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Georgina Castellanos: I believe that Watson focuses on marine mammals. But the issue for me is whether he is coupling that activity with a clear and consistent vegan message. That is, although I personally do not in=vest energy into species-specific campaigns, if others do, I think that focuising on veganism and abolition is necessary or else it's just the same old same old.

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Eliana Crema: Where issues of fundamental morality are involved, "purely strategic" does not cut it.

You use the word, "mindful". The practice of mindfulness is central to Buddhism. As some Buddhist teachers point out, mindfulness on its own is not sufficient. Mindfulness needs to be accompanied by morality. You can "mindfully" commit heinous actions--I am now mindfully cutting this chicken's throat, I am now mindfully listening to her screams, I am now mindfully ripping out the feathers, I am now mindfully chewing on her flesh, etc. etc.--all totally immoral, violating ahimsa and creating negative karma. And this is what welfarism supports and entrenches--the continued torture and murder of animals. Welfarism definitely does not "work in animals' best interest". Quite the opposite, it promotes the fantasy of "humane" or "happy" exploitation, making consumers feel more comfortable about exploiting animals, leading to more exploitation. I doubt that there is anything even slightly "mindful" about welfarism and "happy" exploitation, but even if someone could engage with it mindfully, that would say nothing about its morality; it would not change the fact that it's immoral.

Last time you posted you were appealing to shonky New Age/Native American type ideas to justify speciesism; now you're resorting to half-baked notions from Buddhism, still trying to justify speciesism in the form of support for welfarism. How about you stop using pseudo spirituality to try to justify speciesism and happy exploitation and do some reading on abolitionist animal rights, about which, at this point, you seem to remain clueless? You could choose to cease support for exploitation entirely. Wouldn't that be the moral, and, indeed, the genuinely spiritual thing to do? Ahimsa is the foundation of spirituality and ahimsa means veganism.

Welfarism and abolitionism cannot "split" because they were never one movement to begin with. They are mutually exclusive, diametrically opposed approaches to animal ethics. They are going in different directions, with welfarism taking the cause of animal rights backwards, and abolitionism taking it forwards. There is no possibility of abolitionism and welfarism working together. We don't "abolish certain groups". How would that even be possible? We recognise that their aims and ours are incompatible and we criticise the failure of welfarism employing facts and reason.

And yes, we consider this "detail" to be important: It is morally wrong to use animals as resources, period; it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals, and that means veganism as the moral baseline. Welfarist groups do not promote veganism as the moral baseline.

<<Just my humble opinion>>. Can I suggest that you take some steps towards informing yourself on abolitionist animal rights before you opine? Presumably you care about animals or you wouldn't be here. I can assure you it will be well worth your effort and you'll gain great clarity on the best way to help animals.http://www.abolitionistapproach.com

Single issue campaign, racism, anti whaling-campaign, etc.

Veganism and carriage horses
Does he/she consume a vegan diet or not? If he oppresses animals 3 times per day, he may not understand the other moral issues with animal use.
This is a great debate article related to 'carriage horses' convincing nonvegans: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/new-york-times-debate-carriage-horses/

Stop breeding animals for humans use. The reason why animals are killed unnecessarily, why horses goes to slaughter,etc., is because that they are property under the law. As long as they are viewed as property, animals will be subject to suffering for the social and economic benefit of human beings. Thus if we care about animals we have to abolish domestication and having animals as property. Why domestication is morally wrong: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-rights-and-domesticated-nonhumans/

John Griffith:
It's a fantasy that we've taught ourselves that animals work with us to their own benefit. All animals were feral in the beginning. Try to work with a feral animal and what does it do? It flees. We have domesticated feral animals by first modifying their behavior using a cruel technique known as learned helplessness, and then we have bred docility into them. Animals who perform labor for humans are punished or killed if they fail to perform. Pretending they are willful participants to their benefit is patently absurd.

Domestication.breeding..Taking care of animals that exist

It really baffles me when I sometimes see animal rights advocates denouncing others for sharing their homes with other animals (i.e. "pets"), comparing their doing so to enslaving them. Domestication has left us with a horrible situation where animals have been (and continue to be) bred for human pleasure and companionship and those animals (cats, dogs, rabbits and others) are too often tossed aside and abandoned when that pleasure isn't maximized. Some are just left to struggle and to fend for themselves outside, continuing to breed more of their own into existence to in turn struggle. Others are abandoned at (or found and placed into) shelters, where they can often languish in cages for months -- where 3-4 million in the US alone each year end up killed. And why are they killed? Simply because they are unwanted. Because so many of them were thrown away and no human has been willing to commit to take them in and to meet their most basic needs.

They didn’t ask to be bred into this world and to have the value of their lives based on whether or not a human would deem them suitably pleasurable. Yet this is the situation with which we’re left -- in which THEY are left. It makes no sense to me how someone who purports to be an advocate for other animals would view taking in homeless cats and dogs (or rabbits, rats, et al.) as selfish or as akin to exploitation. It may not be ideal, but what's the practical alternative? To let them die in shelters? That this could somehow be construed as "more ethical" makes no sense to me.

For me, even though I can say that I have truly loved and appreciated each and every furry family member I've adopted during the last 20+ years, opening up my home to some of these other animals isn't something I've chosen to do for my own pleasure. I do it because I believe that I have a definite ethical obligation to do so. I feel that it is one of the most simple gestures I can make to try to counter the injustice foisted upon them. Fostering and/or adopting saves lives. It offers these discarded individuals safe and comfortable places to live out the remainder of their lives as happily as possible. It find it unnerving that some animal advocates can't see this and instead go around vilifying those who do take in these refugees of domestication and discouraging others from stepping forward and from saving lives themselves. If you claim to truly care about other animals, you should go vegan. And if you have the room in your heart and home, you should foster and/or adopt any of the millions of unwanted whose lives you have the ability to change -- to save.


Animals Australia.... - Live export, killing in other countires
Animals Australia: the meat industry's best mate.

I came home tonight to a fundraising email from ANIMALS AUSTRALIA. They talk about an Australian bull who was killed in Gaza. They claim that if people donate, they can "save" animals like this bull.

And what does that mean?

It means not having these animals killed by those evil Palestinians in Gaza. Instead, these animals will be killed by kindly, caring Australians in wonderful Australian slaughterhouses, often after having been transported long distances in marvelous Australian trucks.

How dare Animals Australia claim that these animals will be "saved"?

How ethnocentric. How xenophobic. How downright obscene.

Animals Australia: the best buddy that the Australian meat industry could ever hope to find. And you can join in the partnership with industry with your donation.

It is one of those movies that are fine with animal exploitation, but against factory farming. It features Michael Pollan, which is one of those authors promoting "happy exploitation" and "conscientious omnivores" that consume animal foods with a good consciousness.

Response to people against rescuing animals
Rarely have I seen such uninformed nonsense. The institution of pet ownership is a product of the prevailing paradigm that animals are property for humans to use as we see fit. The breeding of animals for use as pets and the subsequent disregard for the wellbeing of companion animals reflects this and has resulted in the problem with homeless animals we are currently experiencing. A paradigm shift is what we are seeking through vegan education and that will include the fact that breeding and keeping pets is inconsistent with animal rights. Until society accepts and implements such a change we have a duty of care to those animals who are here through no fault of their own and the practice of rescue and adoption can in no way be compared to the institution of pet ownership. There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that vegans who adopt animals are perpetuating pet ownership. On the contrary, vegans portraying their adoptees as persons rather that property is a vital part of the education process. If a nonvegan is going to take a companion animal, even if it is as a ‘pet owner’, I would much prefer that animal to be an adopted refugee that an animal purchased from a breeder. As far as I can see, nobody contributing to this thread has implied they “believe we have an inherent right to keep pets”. Finally, can we please dispense with the emotive and false assertion that vegans adopting refugees causes the death of ‘countless’ other animals to feed them. Firstly, as has already been stated, many dogs and cats are successfully converted to a plant-based diet and many herbivorous species are also adopted.

Even though we obviously get pleasure from our nonhuman companions, the primary reason for adoption is to save their live not to have a “"cute animal as home entertainment”. Our adopted cats would be as welcome in our home if they never came near us. One day, hopefully, there will be no animals kept as pets and no abandoned animals needing a home. Until then, such animals have as much right to life as any others.


Everyone who meets me knows that we rescued our dogs and I use the opportunity educated them on the issues - many don't realise that dogs can be vegan - and because of being exposed to me and our rescued dogs, people have decided to rescue instead of buying. That is a good thing in my opinion.

It's a matter of opinion - some opinion says its wrong to rescue - some say its good.

The facts are that abandoned animals will die regardless of our opinions.

I can't save the world, I can't save them all. But I'm happy I've saved two.

I'm happy we rescued our dogs. Yes my some opinions they are slaves. Yes by some opinion they are our family members who are treated the same as our human children - they all have their own beds, they can only eat what we feed them, they have boundaries that we give them etc etc.

" Presumably those who think that abandoned animals should not be adopted support the only viable alternative which is to kill them all."

Yes, a person who lives in the city will likely need a leash when he/she is out walking with his/her dog.

Obviously in an ideal world their will be no domesticated animals.
But according to some people in this thread it seems that killing the animals a morally desirable option compared to having the dog on a leash. That is very confused and sad.

This confused argument that we have a "moral obligation NOT to rescue animals" is a utilitarian argument.

It says: "We ought to expoit/use/ignore one individual, if helping this individual will lead to an increase in the net amount of suffering of other individuals. We ought to murder one individual, if it leads to a decrease of the net suffering of other individuals."


Yes indeed Alan. It is very popular. One of its biggests proponents today is Peter Singer, and he has a lot of animal exploitation on his hands being one of the most famous proponents of the "happy exploitation"-movement:

But if I rescue pets, other people will get inspired to own pets.
You make this assertion as if it never occurred to a person to get a pet until they saw 'another pet owner'.

It also sounds like your argument comes from the frame of reference that their exist only two types of people in the world - 'pet owners' (including vegans with rescued animals) and people who have no idea that domestic breeds of animals exist.

Your argument is not framed in the real world.

In the real world, people don't purchase animals on a whim because they see other people with them - they purchase them because the paradigm they live in allows them to, the law allows them to and they've been indoctrinated into the system of pet ownership.

The only way to deconstruct this paradigm is through education.

Sure, people will observe me with our dogs and think, "Oh, there's another pet owner." But so what?

Here's a fact check for you, I'm not the only person in the neighbourhood with dogs. But I am probably the only vegan with rescued dogs in the neighbourhood who will stop for a friendly chat and shatter their perception of 'there's another pet owner'.

And a lot of people stop to say hello to us

Abolitionist vegans take on promoting welfare reform
This essay thoroughly shows why it is speciesist to promote animal welfare reform: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-welfare-regulation-happy-exploitation-and-speciesism/ and beunks some strawman-arguments.

The regulationists claim that to oppose their “happy exploitation” campaigns is to oppose relieving the suffering of animals. That’s just nonsense. Putting aside that I believe that these welfare reforms do little to provide increased protection for animals, I would no more support these campaigns than I would support a campaign for the more “humane” stoning of women or the more “gentle” molestation of children. More “humane” stoning and more “gentle” molestation may reduce suffering a bit but it would come at the cost of accepting that institutions that exist to deny fundamental moral rights can be “improved.” They can’t be.

The regulationists claim that because I opposed Proposition 2 in 2008, I was in favor of more suffering on the part of laying hens in California. That’s just nonsense. I opposed Proposition 2 because I reject the welfarist approach and felt it was important to take a position against the welfare campaigns that have become a ubiquitous feature of the modern animal movement. As I said at the time:

Proposition 2, if passed, will only make the public feel better about animal exploitation and will result in increased exploitation. Animals will continue to be tortured; the only difference will be that the torture will carry the stamp of approval from the Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, and the other animal welfare corporations that are promoting Proposition 2. It is telling that approximately 100 farming organizations are supporting Proposition 2. Why do you think that is? The answer is plain. These producers believe that Proposition 2 will help their “bottom line.” And it will.
The quote continues in the essay.


My own words:
I will never ever promote "humane" rape. I find this to be fundamentally unethical.
I will never ever promote "happy exploitation". I find this to be fundamentally unethical.
Promoting reforms that consist of making an "exploitation more happy for the animals" is sending the implicit message that this "happy exploitation" is morally acceptable. I think this is immoral and entrenches the very paradigm that enables all exploitaiton.

Either we go to the consumers in the store who try to buy the dead animals and their secretions and say: Could you please buy the meat from the animals that was murdered more "humanely";
or we go the consumers in the store who try to buy the dead animals and their secretions and tell them: Could you please go vegan (and explain why).
Which one is opposing all violence and discrimination, and which one is encouraging others to participate in it?

The same goes for "advocating welfare reforms" vs promoting veganism.

Debunking: Humans are of higher moral worth because of their brain size:
Pauline Wooding Most people base the hierarchy they have artificially created on brain size (or more developed neocortex) that humans have, which enables them to do certain things, use reasoning, analyse, reflect, lead more complex lives, learn new skills, plan ahead, etc. (although they may not use these exact words). They say that humans are capable of "getting more out of life", etc. because of certain intricacies in how they lead their lives. They believe that humans who are brain damaged or, for whatever reason, are not able to do things that many other humans are able to do, are given favourable status in this hierarchy by virtue of association or kinship (as people tend to favour or protect their extended family).

However, why should the accident of birth ascribe a particular status? Why should brain size or nature be the relevant criterion for ascribing status? Why should membership of a certain category of animal (humans love to categorise and classify) be the relevant factor, when we are all evolutionary cousins? Ascribing membership of a certain group is for reasons of pure convenience. We all obtain different and valuable (to us) experiences from our lives, whatever they may be. It is mere arrogance and conceit to think that the accident of possessing a developed neocortex should be that which attributes high status.

It always seems irrelevant anyway that we should ponder on whether all sentient life is of exactly the same moral worth. How could one ever do this objectively? It has no bearing on whether or not we should use other animals for our own purposes. Why don't we just leave them alone to lead their own lives, when we can quite readily get by without using them as commodities.

To quote Gary Steiner: "Sentience, particularly the capacity to suffer, is perhaps the most conspicuous outward indication of a being's subjective involvement in the struggle for life and well-being. Just as we consider ourselves to be owed duties of non-interference by other human beings in our endeavour to cultivate our own life projects, we must recognize that we owe comparable duties of non-interference to animals, at least sentient ones, as they pursue their life projects. The refusal to recognize these obligations constitutes "human chauvinism"... a form of group selfishness pure and simple". (Animals and the Moral Community).

Abolitionist Approach vs welfarism
Matthew Sikora Welfare organizations used systematic words and actions to minimize the grown of veganism. This paradigm was created by the meat/dairy industry to minimize revenue loss for those industries.

The welfarist mindset tells newly awakened people to go scream and shout at people and tell them they are wrong. The welfarist mindset enables people to perform these actions and thus alienate and denormalize awakened people.

During this time, the welfarist organizations are getting donations and the meat and dairy industry are happy because veganism doesn't grow. After all, if everyone went vegan, welfare organizations would cease to exist and they couldn't pay their employees anymore.

The solution is to be in the mindset that our moral compasses all align with which is the belief that animals matter morally and there is no justification for exploitation of animals.

When we say that, teach that and live that, the paradigm becomes alive and others emulate that. Abolitionist veganism is the way to go! Go take the TAVS challenge and educate people properly!

Inga kommentarer:

Skicka en kommentar