Violence against property is violence

Violence to "property" IS violence to sentient beings. Do you not know that there are sentient beings living in the walls of all buildings? Or do insects not count for you? How many lives have been snuffed out because labs and fur farms were burned? Many more than were "saved", and each of those insects was an individual with an interest in their own survival, just like the non-insect animals in the labs and fur farms.

There are many other reasons why destroying "property" is violence. That is only one of them.


-Colin Wright




-----


More comments about nonviolence and veganism:


The number of non-Vegans in India and China has absolutely no bearing on the issue. There are people in India and China who are non-violently advocating Veganism as well, and what we need are more of them, and less of people following the same, tired, archaic mindset that Steve Best follows.

Peaceful Vegans are leaders, Steve Best is a follower.
----


Colin Wright People who accept Steve Best's idea of how we should make Vegans have those things working against them. I don't. The way I make Vegans is faster and more effective than he understands. He's stuck in the one-dimensional mindset that advocating violence and other kinds of pointless and counter-productive "activism" is morally justifiable.


---

“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.” ~ Gary L Francione

It troubles me when I see vegans calling violent retribution on those who harm animals. I fail to see how it is possible to reconcile advocating violence against one species of sentient beings (humans) while advocating nonviolence against others. Furthermore, such comments achieve nothing except to provide ammunition for those with an interest in opposing veganism and what it stands for.

"Violence is the problem; it is not any part of the solution." ~ Gary L. Francione

Quote: Grumpy Old Vegan

Other important posts:

• Abolitionist veganism - articles, arguments and refutations of objections

Why vegans shouldn't promote Animal welfare reform

There are many people that like to promote "Animal welfare" reforms. It is such a normalized part of our society and few people question whether this could be harmful. Few people question what you are actually promoting by promoting laws that will "reform" any exploitation.

Animal are commodities in our society. When we make laws related to them it is a 'property law'. We make laws that will protect 'property' By making laws related to the 'property' we legitimize that animals are property in our society. The laws are not made in order to protect persons. The laws are made in order to protect the owner from 'property damage'.

When an animal advocate advocates for a law related to the animal prisoners that are imprisoned in this breeding system, they perpetuate and reinforce the property status that these animals have in our society. In the population’s eyes now the problem becomes the treatment, or rather the societal view that the treatment is the problem becomes reinforced, of the exploited animals and not the exploitation of breeding and killing animals at any whim.

This is a big reason of why I don't promote laws that legitimize the very institution that allows animals to be exploited, harmed and killed.
Promoting such reforms will increase the overall animal exploitation and legitimize animal exploitation. I won't legitimize animal exploitation regardless of that it has some positive (and very many negative) consequences. I am not a utilitarian and even in a 'utilitarian' perspective it wouldn't be justified since it increases the overall exploitation.

The reason why industry makes laws to protect "their property" is because that it maximizes their profit.
Animal welfare reform-advocates would say: 'Lets implement a reform that gives better condition for calves used for veal'. The consequence of this would be an increase in sales and increased exploitation of animals. One example of how industry promoted better condition for calves used for veal and how their profit and the exploitation increased: http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1000.htm
This is what occur when you make the public more comfortable with animal exploitation.

So we have two choices:
1.Either we advocate for Animal welfare reforms, which industry would introduce anyways because that it maximizes their profit, and make the public more comfortable with their exploitation because of that we legitimize animal exploitation.
or
2. We promote nonviolent creative vegan education in many various forms and sow vegan seeds and make people understand that you have to go vegan in order to opt out of animal exploitation. This grassroots organization provides many good resources for this: http://www.facebook.com/abolitionistvegansociety

Further reading: http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=rutgersnewarklwps

Sprinkler laws and pet shops?

Lets’ discuss the pet shop scenario: The owners of the pet shop can legally when they want to kill the animals. They can legally breed new animals. They can legally sell the animals to other people that can kill the animals right away. Then they can keep and treat the animal in any way they like to without risking any legal consequence if they just hide it to the public.

Other animals used for food can be tortured legally and without the risk of facing any legal consequence.

When an animal advocate advocates for a law related to the animal prisoners that are imprisoned in this breeding system, they perpetuate and reinforce the property status that these animals have in our society. They legitimize the exploitation of animals. The law that will be enforced is a law to protect 'commodities', not a law to safeguard persons.

 In the population’s eyes now the problem becomes the treatment, or rather the societal view that the treatment is the problem becomes reinforced, of the exploited animals and not the exploitation of breeding and killing animals at any whim. As long as they have sprinklers, as long as they are treated good, they can be killed when their owner think that they no longer need to take care of the animal. The focus becomes on the treatment of animals, instead of putting the focus on all use of animals. And nonvegan animal lovers think that they are helping the animals while they are consuming their dinner of animal foods, wearing their leather shoes and their wool sweater, and bringing their healthy pet to the animal shelter because of that they don't have time to take care of her. And since animals are property under the law, the animal welfare reforms doesn’t offer any real protection – not in reality and seldom in court.

Instead of using my time to draft Animal welfare reforms/sign petitions of Animal welfare reforms that perpetuate the property status and the exploitation of animals, I use my time to educate our world that they have a moral obligation not to exploit animals; and that no domestication of animals can be justified. No breeding shop/pet shops can be morally justified. Further that we should adopt and take care of the domesticated animals that are her today. It is having a good effect and many people go vegan. And thus less animals are exploited than should have been exploited otherwise.

When it comes to advocating for sprinklers in a school there is a morally a completely different issue. Children in the schools are not commodities. However if I were to advocate for sprinklers for human slaves when owning slaves were common in the USA and slaves were property under law, the moral issue would be the same.

Now may I suggest that you study some theory of the Abolitionist Approach, instead of misrepresenting us that we don’t care about the welfare of animals??

Why all farming of animals involves unnecessary suffering and death

First of all even if you think that there may be such a thing as a moral and responsible "property owner", the mere status of animals being property will necessarily lead to that many animals are subjected to completely unnecessary suffering. Thus if you think that animals have a moral value, you can't justify animals being property under the law:

"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.
"
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021...

Second of all,
Every sentient being has an interest in a continued existence. They appreciate their positive subjective experiences, and have an interest of experiencing more positive subjective experiences.
The question is whether your pleasure or convenience can justify taking this from a sentient being.

Third of all,
We know scientifically (and we know by many observations too) that animals are harmed when torn away from their families. This happens for ALL cows used for dairy, and it occurs when animals are slaughtered.
Can you justify this emotional suffering just to gain pleasure or convenience?

------------------------

Follow up answer to a person I am discussing with:
Torah stipulates 8 days. There is lots of emotional suffering involved when you separate a mother from her baby after 8 days. Some people claim that there is more suffering involved, since they have made a much stronger bond after that time. Just one of the many instances when I think that Torah is proscribing people to do immoral acts.

2. I showed you that there is suffering involved in all farming regardless whether it is "kosher" or not. And it is completely unnecessary since we have no nutritional need for animal foods.

And you didn't comment on how you can justify depriving a sentient being of her interest of a continued existence.

3. The "Animals as property"-argument is valid. Human slaves couldn't get any real rights either as long as they were property. If you were willing to study the provided research by Prof. Gary Francione you would find out that this is true.

Inherent moral value of animals

Basically,
You can’t both say that animals do have a moral by claiming that torture of animals is morally wrong, and to claim that they don’t have a moral value by enslaving, hurting and killing them for palatable pleasure, convenience, habit or tradition.

There can only be two cases:
1. Animals do have a moral value, and if this is the case they have the right not to be treated as commodities; or
2. They don’t have a moral value, and if this is the case then animal abuse is morally justified.
When you admit to the proposition ‘It is unethical to inflict unnecessary suffering and death for pleasure, convenience, habit or tradition’, you admit that animals have a moral value, and thus the right not to be treated as a commodity, including the right not to be consumed.

Learn more here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/

There is a tendency to see inherent or intrinsic value as some mysterious concept. It’s not. It just reflects the reality that some things–nonsentient things like rocks, cars, and cell phones–have value only to the extent we value them. Some others–humans and sentient nonhumans–value themselves even if no one else values them. Inherent value is the name we given to the moral recognition of that valuation.

(photo credit: Adam Foster | Codefor)

---
For anyone who think that animals have a moral value, and that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals:

Loving/caring/regarding someone having a moral value and inflicting unnecessary suffering and death upon animals for food is an oxymoron.

If you kill individuals that you love, you really need to rethink your concept of love.
There is no moral difference in killing an animal for fun, compared to killing an animal in order to derive pleasure from the taste of it.

We have no need at all for any animal products whatsoever, thus when someone is consuming them, this is done out of the lack of ‘necessity’. And I am sure you agree with the moral proposition that is unethical to hurt and kill animals despite the lack of necessity. Thus your acting according to the moral belief that you believe in.
If you are consuming animal products you are participating in exploiting and killing them. This is not ethical.

The reason why there is animal abuse at all is because of us regarding animals as property, which will remain as long as people insist to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals for palatable pleasures or convenience. It is well known that animal products are unhealthy, and that a vegan diet is healthy: http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/

And as long as you permit this and participate in this, you are apart of the animal abuse (and also guilty of the most horrendous parts of the abuse, which you enable by endorsing the property status of animals), instead of a part of the solution.
For some clarity I recommend: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/clarifying-the-meaning-of-a-right/#.Ua0CHpxc18E

Go vegan. Act like animals matter morally: www.vegankit.com

Vegan reply: Does 'species have a drive to live' justify killing for food?

Stephanie,
Now I finally got to it to write a reply.

You wrote:
“All species have a drive to live. This is what keeps them alive. To equate this with some kind of evil is to destroy what keeps them alive. Both the chimps did the right thing because they did what chimps do.”

One of the chimpanzee participated in a behaviour to inflict harm upon another being. The other chimpanzee tried to stop the harm of taking place. I think the second chimpanzee did the morally right thing. We also have the drive to live. However, we are able to reach the moral understanding that it is wrong to kill another innocent sentient being in order to keep us alive - regardless of whether it is a human or nonhuman animal, e.g. to make an unprovoked attack of an innocent sentient being. Whether animals of other species can reach this moral understanding or not is an interesting question, but let us focus on us living an ethical lifestyle.

You wrote: “You have said that because humans have a conscience, that we are expected to do better than the animals do. That's fine. That would then mandate a standard for us, but does not mandate one for the animals, and we could not say that they are immoral/unethical.”

It was Hannah that wrote that.
Say that an animal of a species isn’t aware of how to live an ethical life. This wouldn’t change whether her actions are immoral or not. Most humans are morally unaware that it is unethical to kill other animals for food, just like I was until last autumn and most vegans were until they made the realizations which eventually caused them to become vegans. This doesn’t change that their action of hurting and killing another being is unethical.

Anyways, these are all interesting questions, but the most essential question is for us humans, how to live ethical lives, and to act upon our knowledge.
Is there any moral justification for any human to kill any other sentient being for food or clothing? Is there any moral justification for any human to use another animal as a resource (see the thoughts expressed in the following article)?
What do you think of the thoughts expressed in this article?: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/clarifying-the-meaning-of-a-right/#.Ua0Jb5xc18F

Veganism is --eating with love and compassion and disregarding any "taste buds" that promote violence, suffering and death to animals

If we think this is unethical:

However e.g. to mention that there are 600 million vegetarian persons (and he includes those who are eating eggs and milk in this definition), fails to address the death and suffering eating animals products causes other sentient beings:

[For anyone that is unaware of this: ]
If we think this is unethical:

Cows to be raped (impregnated against their will) every year (because a cow produces milk for 'only' a year), heavily abused, having their milk stolen, having their calves stolen the same day or some days after they conceive them (so that humans can get their milk) EVERY year, having the cows drained of calcium that they need, having their male calves (who where stolen from them :(  ]slaughtered for "meat" being 6 months or 18 months old, having the "milk cows" being killed 5 years old because that they can't produce enough milk.

then we must stop causing this to occur by our dietary choices.
Animals life, purpose and health MUST be more important than our taste buds.
We can't just ignore this. Their life matters as much to them, as our life matters to us. They want to live as much as we want to live. They don't want to be abused as we don't want to be abused.

This is a wonderful movie with cows (non gory): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vcQ6yBEE5N0
Animals have the right to be free and not to be enslaved. I really recommend this article: http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/what-are-the-roots-of-freedom-and-slavery/

If you research e.g. the website www.vegankit.com you will understand that any kind of animal use is wrong, and that it perpetuates the status of animals as "property", which is the cause of the most horrendous physical animal abuses. If you understand this you can in no way participate in any kind of use of animal, since you are both confining and exploiting an animal and are perpetuating the "property"-status of animals, with all of its negative consequences.

----

Growing plant-based foods in ones own land is a great idea!
Regarding the cows:
How could we take something from someone else that doesn't belong to us, e.g. milk?
How could we impregnate an individual against her will (regardless of species)l?
How could we drain someone on the calcium that she needs (regardless of species)?
How could we separate a mother from her calf - which is done in all milk operations? Furthermore, no one affords to feed all the cows (one more calf per year, because of making the cow pregnant, so that humans can get more milk), so male calves are sent to slaughter (or in a non-kill operation, which is extremely rare, they are used in other ways, perpetuating the "animal as property"-notion, which is the cause of all suffering humans impose on animals in this world.

Except for all of the suffering,pain, slavery and death that is inflicted on the animals -- which is never ethical and can never be justified by any means - ALL diary operations (and operations with other animal products) (and grass-fed cows are having a bigger environmental impact because of that they release more methane gas) are having a huge environmental impact and is causing poverty,starvation and huge global warming, which will cause a vast amounts of droughts and floods with many more people and other animals killed:
See also this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fws0f9s4Bas&feature=em-uploademail

The plant-based foods that the more than 56 billion land animals (who have the sadly misfortune to grow up to become someones food - and this include "milk cows") brutally slaughtered each year eats could feed more than 9 billion people.
6 million children are dieing of starvation in the world each year. Hundreds of millions don't get enough food. If we care of them we must let our eating habits reflect this. If everyone ate plant-based food, the food would suffice for everyone's need.
More information: http://comfortablyunaware.com/blog/the-world-hunger-food-choice-connection-a-summary/