Animal Rights The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights

[Clueless Git]

It will always be my belief that once you con people into thinking that the exploitation of animals for food is being done kindly and humanely, not only will the majority never ever stop slaughtering animals for food, many vegetarians will probably start consuming them again.

Exactly.

 

[mlp]

It will always be my belief that once you con people into thinking that the exploitation of animals for food is being done kindly and humanely, not only will the majority never ever stop slaughtering animals for food, many vegetarians will probably start consuming them again.

I think that those veg*ns who would start eatings animals again if they think they're being *humanely* raised and slaughtered are already consuming them again. It's a small percentage that remain veg*n.

Which brings us to my main concern with the "all or nothing" approach of abolitionism - it trades the current and ongoing suffering of billions for the highly speculative prospect that, at some distant time in the future, the abolitionist philosophy might prevail if only it is adhered to strictly enough. It's a lot like refusing to give those people on a cattle car to the concentration camps a drink of water because mitigating their suffering in any way would make their fates more palatable to the public at large.

The fact that nonhumans can't speak for themselves just makes abolition a much less likely prospect, and one that, if it were ever to occur, would occur only in the far distant future, making the price paid for the "all or nothing" approach even more dear.

It's easy for humans to say "We will settle for nothing less than all; in fact, we reject any incremental improvement"; after all, it's not we humans paying the price. IMO, the "all or nothing" approach is just about as blind to the individuality of, and the importance of each individual nonhuman, as the use and consumption of those nonhumans is.

 

[Spang]

Pretty much every positive social change has been a gradual one. The so-called ending of slavery led to black codes, which led to Pig Laws, which led to Jim Crow laws, which led to what we have today: the prison-industrial complex.

Ending the practice of factory farming will lead to more free-range farming, but that will lead to whatever happens after that. Most importantly, though, it will happen. It just takes time and requires the changing of hearts and minds.

 

[Clueless Git]

The fact that nonhumans can't speak for themselves just makes abolition a much less likely prospect ..

I can't help feeling that if more of those with voices were arguing for abolition that the prospects for abolition might improve.

 

[mlp]

I can't help feeling that if more of those with voices were arguing for abolition that the prospects for abolition might improve.

I don't know anyone who is for abolition who isn't arguing for abolition. Do you?

I think it's quite possible to be for abolition and for animal welfare at the same time.

 

[Clueless Git]

I think it's quite possible to be for abolition and for animal welfare at the same time.

Too much evidence that welfarism far more assists the perpetuationists than it does the abolitionists.

I do think you are right in one way though.

The harder the push for nothing less than total abolition then the faster the perpetuationists will have to improve welfare to counter it.

The other side of that coin being that the more 'gentle' the push for total abolition then the more the perpetuationists can afford to slow welfare improvements down.

 

[ledboots]

I don't know anyone who is for abolition who isn't arguing for abolition. Do you?

I think it's quite possible to be for abolition and for animal welfare at the same time.

That's how I am, for welfare now, but I push for abolition whenever possible. I don't talk to veg*ns about it anymore very much though. Too much yelling.

 

[Pickle Juice]

Maybe people's goals differ. If one isn't interested in the total freedom of animals from exploitation it makes no sense to argue for the abolitionist view.

If one is, it makes no sense to argue for anything less.

Pretty much every positive social change has been a gradual one. The so-called ending of slavery led to black codes, which led to Pig Laws, which led to Jim Crow laws, which led to what we have today: the prison-industrial complex.

Ending the practice of factory farming will lead to more free-range farming, but that will lead to whatever happens after that. Most importantly, though, it will happen. It just takes time and requires the changing of hearts and minds.

But was that because black people told themselves they'll never get what they want, so they might as well settle for less, or because white people were resistant?



No one's arguing that the process of change isn't gradual. What I am arguing is that when a claim is made that no social movement ever changed anything overnight, so therefore people who are for the total abolition of animal exploitation should give up and support bigger cages and less painful modes of slaughter, people are getting the process confused with the goal.

From Martin Luther King's famous speech:

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

That doesn't sound like a compromise. That sounds like a demand for nothing less than total equality between all the races and all the creeds, a demand for nothing less than complete freedom for all people. The fact that some may still not be enjoying that freedom and equality doesn't mean that demanding it is a mistake, or that it was crazy to pursue it because it would never happen.

Today, for example, here in the US people are demanding that same sex marriage be recognized as legal. Are they settling for civil unions because they think they may never see same sex marriage legalized in their lifetimes? No, they are demanding exactly what they want, and I have a feeling that if someone came up to them and told them they were wasting their time because they're never going to get what they want, they'd be kinda angry and offended.

I'm not saying I'm angry or offended by the differing views expressed in here. I just think people ought to think a little about whether they would have been as likely to tell Gandhi "you're wasting your time. Britain's never gonna give you India back" as they are to tell the advocate of the abolitionist view of animal rights that they are fighting a lost cause and should support welfare instead.

Of course it won't happen overnight. It won't happen in my lifetime. I can guarantee that it will never ever happen if we all abandon working for it, especially if we turn our efforts to supporting measures that will make people feel better about exploitation.

 

[SummerRain]

For those of you who support an abolitionist approach: to what extent do you not support welfare? For example, do you advocate against it? would you rather there were lower welfare standards/oppose highering them? would you vote against them, or petition against them? or just not vote or petition for them?

I'm just curious really. I guess what I want to know is whether not supporting welfarist philosophy extends to actively either refusing to support or even arguing against welfarist laws/schemes/policies/etc in the here and now.

Sometimes it seems as though abolitionists seem to want animals in the here-and-now to suffer as much as possible so that people realise it's cruel to use them and stop all together. Or if not want, then see that as the quickest way to "abolition". (I don't mean anybody in this thread, I just mean in general).

Personally I just couldn't agree with that kind of "the ends justifies the means" attitude. I think that the animals here and now are important, and reducing their suffering is important too. Ultimately I don't want any animal to be used for human ends, but I can't just ignore the fact that they are being used that way now, and that there are ways to reduce their suffering and improve their lives. So the idea of refusing to support welfarist movements seems alien to me.

 

[Pickle Juice]

Sometimes it seems as though abolitionists seem to want animals in the here-and-now to suffer as much as possible so that people realise it's cruel to use them and stop all together. Or if not want, then see that as the quickest way to "abolition". (I don't mean anybody in this thread, I just mean in general).

I think it is important to note that while the movement to end animal exploitation is a small grass-roots movement, there is a billion dollar industry that would love nothing better than to make people think that what you suggest here is true, that abolitionists are even more cruel than animal exploiters because they want animals to suffer for their cause, whereas the kindly animal agriculture industry wants nothing more than to provide people with what they are entitled to - the products of exploitation and slaughter - in humane and compassionate ways.

You really do have to consider the source whenever you come across views that are anti-anti-animal exploitation. I understand that individuals who care about animal suffering have concerns that seem to be better addressed by a welfarist approach than an abolitionist one, but the major force behind the welfarist view of animal exploitation comes from those who profit mightily from said animal exploitation.

 

[mlp]

I think it is important to note that while the movement to end animal exploitation is a small grass-roots movement, there is a billion dollar industry that would love nothing better than to make people think that what you suggest here is true, that abolitionists are even more cruel than animal exploiters because they want animals to suffer for their cause, whereas the kindly animal agriculture industry wants nothing more than to provide people with what they are entitled to - the products of exploitation and slaughter - in humane and compassionate ways.

You really do have to consider the source whenever you come across views that are anti-anti-animal exploitation. I understand that individuals who care about animal suffering have concerns that seem to be better addressed by a welfarist approach than an abolitionist one, but the major force behind the welfarist view of animal exploitation comes from those who profit mightily from said animal exploitation.

That's really side stepping the question and the issue.

IMO, not addressing welfare of animals currently alive in the hope that someday abolition will be achieved is also objectifying the animals currently in existence. Basically, it's saying, "Your suffering could be ameliorated, but we're not going to do that, because strategically it serves the purpose of bringing abolition about sooner." (And I disagree with that latter assumption, for the reasons I've already stated.)

That's an awfully big decision to be making for beings who can't speak for themselves, and who have just as much right to not sacrifice themselves for future generations as you and I have.

 

[Spang]

Of course it won't happen overnight. It won't happen in my lifetime. I can guarantee that it will never ever happen if we all abandon working for it, especially if we turn our efforts to supporting measures that will make people feel better about exploitation.

I didn't think I was arguing for anyone to stop doing what they are doing. Keep doing what you're doing. I think we all have the same goal, if ending the exploitation of animals is the goal - we just prefer different methods in achieving that goal. Within every movement are multiple methods in achieving the overall goal.

 

[Clueless Git]

So the idea of refusing to support welfarist movements seems alien to me.

The sole usefullness of welfarism (on the meat industry/commited omni agenda) is to delay abolition.

Abolitionism can only succeed when sufficient people are put outside of their comfort zones over how meat is produced.

Nothing helps keep people within that comfort zone better than welfarism.

Welfarism, unfortunately, far more assists those who want to keep the meat industry going than it assists those who want the meat industry to end.

 

[Clueless Git]

That's an awfully big decision to be making for beings who can't speak for themselves ..

Animals, either of current or future generations, can't make decisions for themselves which is why we either have to leave them to their plight or make decisions on their behalf.

Both abolitionist and welfarists are equaly guilty of ... "an awfully big decision to be making for beings who can't speak for themselves"

and who have just as much right to not sacrifice themselves for future generations as you and I have.

Don't future generations have the 'right' not to be sacrificed by wrong decisions too?

 

[PTree15]

For those of you who support an abolitionist approach: to what extent do you not support welfare? For example, do you advocate against it? would you rather there were lower welfare standards/oppose highering them? would you vote against them, or petition against them? or just not vote or petition for them?

I'm just curious really. I guess what I want to know is whether not supporting welfarist philosophy extends to actively either refusing to support or even arguing against welfarist laws/schemes/policies/etc in the here and now.

Sometimes it seems as though abolitionists seem to want animals in the here-and-now to suffer as much as possible so that people realise it's cruel to use them and stop all together. Or if not want, then see that as the quickest way to "abolition". (I don't mean anybody in this thread, I just mean in general).

Personally I just couldn't agree with that kind of "the ends justifies the means" attitude. I think that the animals here and now are important, and reducing their suffering is important too. Ultimately I don't want any animal to be used for human ends, but I can't just ignore the fact that they are being used that way now, and that there are ways to reduce their suffering and improve their lives. So the idea of refusing to support welfarist movements seems alien to me.

When the subject of welfare comes up, my response is always along the lines of: The animal still has to die; the animal is still being commodified, regardless of the conditions in which it lives. I have a friend who is a "happy meat" eater, and every time she tries to justify her consumption of it, I say, "But in the end, the animal is killed, and you're still looking at animals as products." It's great that the cow gets to graze happily for its few years on the planet, but what good is it if said cow is led to slaughter years before it would die naturally? This same person won't wear or use any products tested on animals, which also is great and I applaud that, but she has no compunction about keeping the fruits of a slaughtered pig in her freezer. I know it took me a while to get to where I am, to consider cows in the same vein as a pet cat or dog, so I am hopeful that I at least have her thinking about this.

 

[Clueless Git]

... but what good is it if said cow is led to slaughter years before it would die naturally?

Indeed ...

According to a dairy farmer (whom I slipped a veggie-ham sandwhich) natural lifespan of a cow is around 25 years. Dairy industry 'destroys' them in 7 years max.

 

[Liberate]

For those favouring the incremental welfarist model, it is worth considering the argument that welfare reforms would still result from abolitionist rights-based campaigning and vegan advocacy. Some like Roger Yates have made this case (see http://human-nonhuman.blogspot.ie/2010/08/few-thoughts-on-whether-animal-welfare.html). Essentially, he argues that there is movement-countermovement-state triad such that turbulence caused by increased action from the AR movement (e.g. claims made for veganism and abolition of use) will increase interactions between the countermovement (e.g. user industries) and state agencies to regulate the use and appease the public. As welfarism is the firmly entrenched ideology governing human obligations towards sentient non-humans, effective rights advocacy will always be understood as and converted to a “welfare approach”. As an example, a single-issue campaign to abolish the circus citing illegitimate and unjustified use of wild animals will always be responded to in the language of “our animals are treated well”. So, if this theory is correct, activism focused on abolition will entail welfare reforms along the way.

Nevertheless, whilst I think Francione raises many important and valid criticisms of welfare reforms and the traditional animal organisations, I find elements of his abolitionist approach problematic. Primarily, his sole focus on “creative non-violent vegan education” as a means by which to secure animal liberation is deeply flawed. As critics like Steven Best have noted, it ignores structural problems like growth-centred capitalism and the resulting ecological crises. He overstates the educability of the population and ignores the rapidly expanding middle class of China and India. Additionally, he never mentions the fact that overpopulation will outpace converts to veganism and never proposes strategies to counter this (e.g. desisting from procreation).

I also reject his claim that direct action is morally wrong and practically ineffective. I disagree with him when he states that property destruction and economic sabotage constitute acts of immoral violence. His opposition to even the more liberation and education focused activities like open rescues is an example of his rigid ideological adherence to an inherently speciesist ultra-pacifism. If humans were the victims of such unimaginable exploitation, I struggle to believe he would oppose such actions.

Finally, and this isn’t a critique of any theoretical element of his approach, I find Francione to be arrogant and mean-spirited. He frequently employs terms such as “confused” and “new welfarist” to denigrate anyone who disagrees with him. For someone whose mantra is education, his ability to engage in civil debate is sorely lacking.

 

[das_nut]

I think reducing suffering to animals will be more effective if we have both animal welfarists and abolitionists.

The welfarists work to improve an imperfect world.

The abolitionists keep reminding us about a perfect world we should strive for.

 

[Tom L.]

It comes down to how you parse what the goal is. Women didn't start off fighting for the right to work whatever jobs they wanted, to be paid equally, etc. - they did it incrementally. As did African Americans. My God, if white people had thought that ultimately interracial marriage would be no big deal, that they would be competing with black people for top jobs, how many do you think would have been willing to take that first step? I don't think enough to get that first step done.

I think that you can preach the abolitionist philosophy loud and proud, far and wide, but I think the animal welfarists will be the ones to get enough people to the point where abolition has a chance.

As I said before, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Time will tell, but none of us on this board will be alive to see it.

Both sides have made good points, in this thread and elsewhere. The reason I have such a hard time getting behind welfare measures is that, in my heart of hearts, I can't bring myself to believe that someone who sees an animal they're raising as sandwich filling can be counted on to treat that animal well when nobody is looking.

I know people who hunt, and have known a few people who raised animals for food. With maybe one or two exceptions, they haven't been psycopaths to humans, and were even capable of caring for "pet" animals. But I have never heard or read a coherent, lucid, logical explanation from anyone as to how or why someone could care about an animal's welfare if they do not see any inherent value in that creature's life.

 

[ledboots]

That's a really good point, Tom. ^^