archive-com.com » COM » A » ABOLITIONISTAPPROACH.COM

Total: 223

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • UNDERSTANDING THE WELFARIST POSITION - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    Joe because he s taking a baby step in the right direction No of course not But that is exactly what animal welfare supporters claim if we say those who consume happy animal products are engaged in action that is morally wrong we are not being compassionate Should we claim that those who criticize what Joe is doing in hitting the child with the smaller stick are bashing Joe No of course not But that is exactly what animal welfare supporters say If an abolitionist says to a welfarist or a welfarist group that promoting cage free eggs or crate free pork or other happy animal product is not a good idea they are accused of bashing the person or group The choice between the abolitionist approach and the welfare approach is crystal clear You just have to decide where your moral compass points 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 And never ever buy into the nonsensical notion that we need to promote happy exploitation in order to get people to go vegan It s the opposite the entire happy exploitation industry has one goal to make the public more comfortable about animal exploitation The World is Vegan If you want it Gary L Francione Professor Rutgers University 2013 Gary L Francione Related posts Peter Singer and the Welfarist Position on the Lesser Value of Nonhuman Life Singer s Position on Fish is Fishy A Response To PETA s Position On Happy Or Humane Exploitation Do Abolitionists Have a Position on Human Rights You Bet We Do A Welfarist Dream Come True The Animal Abuse Registry Share this entry Share

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/understanding-welfarist-position/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Making a Mockery of Gandhi - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    is for example consuming cage free eggs but also that we should not reject cage free eggs as involving animal exploitation because that would not be compassionate toward the person who is consuming the happy eggs The welfarists say that we should not only not judge the vegetarian who consumes dairy and eggs but also that we should not say that continuing to consume dairy and eggs constitutes animal exploitation because that is to behave without compassion and empathy toward the non vegan Whenever I say something about veganism being the unequivocal moral baseline and I reject any happy exploitation I get the chorus of welfarists chanting the mantra that to criticize non veganism and happy exploitation is to act without compassion and empathy for those who are engaged in animal exploitation If you think about this it s absurd The welfarist renders Gandhi s and Augustine s good advice to be meaningless Love the sin and love the sinner The welfarists want us to say that animal exploitation should not be condemned because it might offend those who are doing it and discourage them from stopping That is nothing more than a rejection of the moral value of animals And that is the fundamental problem with welfarism It rejects the notion of moral equality between humans and nonhumans and reinforces the anthropocentrism that has justified animal exploitation for thousands of years That is why Peter Singer the so called father of the animal rights movement can on one hand talk about all animals human and nonhuman being equal at the same time he characterizes consistent principled veganism as fanatical and talks about the luxury of eating humane animal products Welfarists have appropriated a wonderful word compassion and they have turned it into a stamp of approval for conduct that harms We should not only not judge the actor but we should not judge the conduct Not judging conduct or not judging it soon enough is what has accounted for most of the moral disasters we have had throughout history It is what is at the root cause of the problem of animal exploitation and why the dominant response to that problem is the absurd and unjust happy exploitation movement None of this has anything to do with compassion It has to do with putting a stamp of approval on harm It has to do with declaring injustice to be acceptable for the sake of compassion And that is deeply twisted thinking 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 And never ever buy into the nonsensical notion that we need to promote happy exploitation in order to get people to go vegan It s the opposite the entire happy exploitation industry has one goal to make the public more comfortable about animal exploitation The World is Vegan If you want it

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/making-mockery-gandhi/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Enabling Animal Exploitation - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    veganism We certainly should not be encouraging people to think that we do right by the animals when we eat a non vegan wrap at McDonald s If someone who cares about animals wants to do less than be vegan that should be her his choice and not as a result of animal advocates putting a stamp of approval on any consumption of animal products The new McDonald s product is not vegan For that ground alone vegans should not promote it or praise it or encourage its consumption And it remains a mystery to me as to why welfarists believe that promoting McDonald s is ever in the interest of animals 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 And never ever buy into the nonsensical notion that we need to promote happy exploitation in order to get people to go vegan It s the opposite the entire happy exploitation industry has one goal to make the public more comfortable about animal exploitation The World is Vegan If you want it Gary L Francione Professor Rutgers University 2013 Gary L Francione Related posts The Problem Animal Advocates Who Promote Animal Exploitation Blessing Exploitation Some Animal Advocates Never Miss An Opportunity to Exploit Animal Exploitation Carnism There Is Nothing Invisible About The Ideology Of Animal Exploitation Animal Exploitation Brought to You by Animal Advocates Share this entry Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google Share on Pinterest Share on Linkedin Share on Tumblr Share on Vk Share on Reddit Share by Mail Français Visitez notre site miroir français Recent Posts Guest Essay This is Why New Welfarists Should Stop Equivocating

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/enabling-animal-exploitation/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Animal Welfare Regulation, "Happy Exploitation," and Speciesism - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    basic rights and are dealing with rights that may still be very important but are not basic in the way that rights to life and physical security are it s another to have a campaign for more humane torture rape child abuse slavery etc In order to see the difference here let s consider the following two campaigns Campaign 1 is a campaign to secure driving rights for women in Saudi Arabia where women cannot drive because of interpretations of religious laws Campaign 2 is a campaign to make more humane the stoning of women in Saudi Arabia who are accused of talking with a man who is not her husband Our intuitions tell us that a decision to support a driving campaign might be acceptable particularly if it were coupled with a clear and unequivocal demand for the complete equality of women But a campaign for more humane stoning No Our intuitions tell us that such a campaign is morally unacceptable and that the only position we should take is that no woman should be stoned at all When it comes to these sorts of situations we don t think in terms of reducing suffering we think in terms of prohibitions and we want to send a very clear message that the interest in not being stoned for talking with a man is an interest that cannot be compromised And it would be nothing short of obscene to have a campaign for more humane stoning coupled with a public letter by human rights campaigners to the perpetrators expressing appreciation and support for their pioneering methods of stoning Similarly let s contrast a campaign that encourages a dictator to torture political prisoners more gently with a campaign that encourages the dictator to give trials and due process protection to prisoners In the first case the campaign is seeking to make the infringement of a basic right to physical security more humane In the second the campaign seeks to take an incremental step toward justice for a particular group And can you imagine a campaign that seeks more gentle torture and then gives the dictator an award for his more humane torture methods and puts him on the front of a human rights magazine in a celebratory fashion There can be no doubt that there is a difference between a campaign that seeks to make slavery more humane by limiting the number of beatings that can be imposed on slaves and a campaign that seeks to extend and protect voting rights for minority groups who are not slaves and who are regarded morally and legally as persons and for whom we seek justice and equality There can be no doubt that there is a difference between a campaign for humane rape and a campaign for full equal rights for women There can be no doubt that there is a difference between a campaign for more humane child abuse and a campaign for better public education for children from economically deprived backgrounds In the former of each of the sets above the campaign seeks a more humane infringement of the basic rights of beings who are being treated as things in the latter of each set the campaign seeks to secure greater protection to beings who are regarded as persons but who are subject to some injustice or inequality Nonhuman animals who are raised and killed for human use are as an institutional matter deprived of their basic rights to their lives and to their physical security They are in a situation similar to slaves in that they are chattel property things that have no intrinsic value They have only the extrinsic value that we their owners give to them Nonhuman animals are in a situation similar to concentration camp victims whose keeping and killing are streamlined to be as mechanized and efficient as possible They are victims of institutional exploitation where the institution exists to deprive them of their basic rights and to deny their status as moral persons Most of us would not think it a good idea to campaign for more humane slavery or more humane concentration camps And we certainly would not make public statements praising and expressing our appreciation and support to slave owners or characterizing the confinement or execution methods in the concentration camps as pioneering But yet most of the large animal organizations in the U S South America Europe Australia etc do precisely that They promote campaigns for more humane infringements of the moral rights of animals What they are doing is analogous to promoting campaigns for more humane stoning A campaign for an enriched battery cage or for the controlled atmosphere killing of chickens is not akin to campaigning for driving rights for women in Saudi Arabia as a step toward the full equality of persons or analogous to affirmative action programs or to programs to improve and increase Medicaid benefits No I Am Not in Favor of More Animal Suffering 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 and It is important for animal advocates to send a clear message to the Humane Society of the United States Farm Sanctuary and other groups to stop promoting measures like Proposition 2 If HSUS is really concerned about animal suffering then it should perhaps spend a chunk of its 223 million in assets and 124 million in revenues on vegan education Veganism reduces the demand for animal products and helps to shift social attitudes away from the notion that it is morally acceptable to use animals as long as we do so humanely That view results in nothing but continued and increased animal use It is time that advocates just said no to it If animal advocates are obligated to not oppose such campaigns then the large welfarist organizations will simply continue to pursue them Not to oppose such campaigns is to support happy exploitation I refuse to support happy exploitation The regulationists claim that if I will not support a campaign for personhood for great apes or dolphins I am in favor of those nonhumans continuing to suffer That s just nonsense I would no more support such a campaign which conditions moving animals from the thing side of the line over to the person side of the line based on the possession of humanlike characteristics than I would support a campaign against human slavery that sought personhood only for slaves who were light skinned or had a certain percentage of white blood I am all in favor of getting every great ape out of every laboratory and zoo and every dolphin out of every marine park but I am not going to support a campaign that says that moral status depends on having humanlike characteristics particularly when these campaigns are often promoted by people who are not even vegans or who go out of their way to say that personhood is linked to characteristics beyond sentience and that other animals who are sentient but don t have these special i e humanlike characteristics don t count as persons The Regulationists Welfare Reform Campaigns Don t Signal Approval of Consuming Animal Products Not only do regulationists campaign for improvements in the infringement of a basic right they claim not to put a seal of approval on the more humane or improved exploitation that supposedly results from implementing the reform The short reply that is just nonsense How could their campaigns not put a seal of approval on the resulting supposedly better forms of exploitation Let me state this as simply as I can but it must be obvious to anyone who thinks about it for a second When you promote cage free eggs or crate free pork or any happy animal products flesh or otherwise as the compassionate choice or the right thing when you sponsor or promote or praise happy exploitation labels when you give awards to exploiters when you issue public letters praising them when you celebrate them on the front covers of magazines and on social media websites by asking your supporters to give them kudos or props you are putting a stamp of approval on supposedly more gentle animal exploitation And it is absurd to suggest otherwise Question When someone sees the Whole Foods ad for organic chicken for 1 99 per pound with an Animal Welfare Rating of 2 and checks out the Global Animal Partnership to see that it has the CEO of HSUS on its board and reads that PETA HSUS Mercy For Animals Compassion Over Killing Vegan Outreach etc have all publicly expressed their appreciation and support for the Whole Foods pioneering program of happy exploitation and has given Whole Foods and its CEO awards what would that person think Answer She will think exactly what any sane and rational person would think that animal people who are the experts and who have the animals best interests in mind are expressing their approval of the animal products that Whole Foods will sell her that she ought to buy those Whole Food products She may think that these groups ideally would like her to go veg eventually but she simply cannot avoid thinking that the experts are telling her that she is behaving morally by buying the Whole Foods happy animal products Bruce Friedrich s recent essay on cage eggs concludes So far the only national grocery store chain to have banned the sale of eggs from caged hens is Whole Foods The only restaurant chain to promise to ban them from their supply chain is Burger King by 2017 These companies deserve plaudits for their progress These types of cages will also be illegal in California in 2015 and in Michigan in 2019 and legislation to ban them will be introduced in Massachusetts soon if you live in Massachusetts check FarmSanctuary org for updates At Farm Sanctuary we spend our lives with farm animals and we wouldn t eat them or their eggs under any circumstances We recoil at the abuse of hens in all systems including cage free and colony cage conditions But we also work to abolish the very worst abuses of farm animals and it s hard to imagine anything worse than the tiny barren cramped battery cages where 250 million hens currently are forced to spend their lives Battery cages have to go Putting aside that Friedrich is now campaigning with HSUS for national legislation that would make the enriched battery cage the national standard his message is still terribly confused As someone commented Okay so exactly what should I do first stop supporting the killing of chickens by going vegan or write my thank you letter to Burger King and Whole Foods for continuing to support the killing of chickens Exactly The message Friedrich sends is that not eating eggs at all is some ideal position and that there are incremental steps such as cage free or enriched battery cage eggs that are morally acceptable Last fall PETA claimed to not endorse happy exploitation But as I pointed out the disclaimer rings hollow when PETA is busy engaging in all sorts of partnerships with institutional exploiters praising them giving them awards etc And the Whole Foods happy exploitation program is not the only one out there that is promoted by animal advocates There are other similar schemes For example Humane Farm Animal Care HFAC with its partners HSUS the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals the World Society for the Protection of Animals and others promotes the Certified Humane Raised Handled label According to the Overview Humane Farm Animal Care HFAC is the leading non profit certification organization dedicated to improving the lives of farm animals in food production from birth through slaughter The goal of the program is to improve the lives of farm animals by driving consumer demand for kinder and more responsible farm animal practices When you see the Certified Humane Raised and Handled label on a product you can be assured that the food products have come from facilities that meet precise objective standards for farm animal treatment This is not an approval of the products bearing the Certified Humane label Really I disagree The Humane Society International an arm of HSUS has launched a Humane Choice label in Australia that it claims will guarantee the consumer that the animal has been treated with respect and care from birth through to death According to HSI HSUS With the recent publicity on free range produce and humane food labelling claims this important initiative could not be more timely The Humane Choice label will initially cover free range pastured beef pork lamb chicken and eggs and will guarantee the consumer that the animal has been treated with respect and care from birth through to death This philosophy can be applied to the entire farm with these shared values for all farm animal in the Humane Choice accreditation program The Humane Choice True Free Range label will denote the animal has had the best life and death offered to any farm animal They basically live their lives as they would have done on Old McDonald s farm born and raised on pastures and being allowed to satisfy their behavioural needs to forage and move untethered and uncaged with free access to outside areas from birth shade when it s hot shelter when it s cold with a good diet and a humane death This is not an approval of the products bearing the Humane Choice label Really I disagree The RSPCA in Britain has the Freedom Food label which is the RSPCA s farm assurance and food labelling scheme It aims to improve the welfare of animals farmed for our food Freedom Food assesses farms to the RSPCA s strict welfare standards and if they meet every standard they can use the Freedom Food label on their product and is the only farm assurance scheme to be recognised at both UK and EU levels as a mark of higher animal welfare Freedom Food is the RSPCA s farm assurance and food labelling scheme the only farm assurance scheme to be recognised at both UK and EU levels as a mark of higher animal welfare The RSPCA states We know that the majority of people more than 70 are concerned about farm animal welfare but knowing what to do can be hard so we work with retailers supermarkets convenience stores farm shops to increase visibility of Freedom Food at point of sale We also work with food brands chefs restaurant owners and food service companies to encourage them to buy from Freedom Food approved farms or to help them bring their suppliers up to Freedom Food approved status so it is easy for us as shoppers to choose the higher welfare option This is not an approval of the products bearing the Freedom Food label Really I disagree The RSPCA as a more traditional welfarist organization would probably not disagree that they are literally approving of eating animal products But the point is that there s a whole industry out there of animal advocates who are encouraging people to believe that there are happy animal products and that people who care about animals ought to consume those products with a more the RSPCA or less Farm Sanctuary PeTA Mercy For Animals HSUS clear conscience Instead of challenging the idea that humans should be consuming animal products at all these animal organizations reinforce the idea that humans can consume animal products as long as we treat animals humanely Another British organization Compassion in World Farming is giving Good Egg Awards to companies like McDonald s and praising them for using cage free eggs CIWF gives a wide range of awards for happy chicken pigs dairy etc Through our Good Farm Animal Welfare Awards programme we engage and reward market leading food companies across Europe for their current policies or commitments that result in positive impacts on farm animal welfare in their supply chains We have run our flagship scheme the Good Egg Award since 2007 to celebrate companies that source only cage free eggs We have now expanded the scheme by launching the Good Chicken Award in 2010 the Good Dairy Award in 2011 and the Good Pig Award in 2012 We reward companies that are committing to implementing substantial changes and making progress in their sourcing of meat eggs and dairy products by working collaboratively

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-welfare-regulation-happy-exploitation-and-speciesism/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Social Justice, Human Rights, and Being Vegan - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    wear or use animal products Second 99 of the people who ask these questions aren t doing anything about the other issues except asking vegans why they are not doing something about them instead of promoting veganism Third veganism at least as I discuss it is about nonviolence and violence is what is at the root of all of the other social justice problems Fourth animal agriculture is causing a great deal of human suffering and is exacerbating social injustice 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 If you want it Gary L Francione Professor Rutgers University 2013 Gary L Francione Related posts Human Rights and Animal Rights Perfect Together Message to The Vegan Society It s About Justice Do Abolitionists Have a Position on Human Rights You Bet We Do Human and Nonhuman Rights as Inextricably Intertwined In a Nutshell Direct Action Everywhere DxE Vegan Advocacy is Harmful to the Animal Rights Movement Share this entry Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google Share on Pinterest Share on Linkedin Share on Tumblr Share on Vk Share on Reddit Share by Mail Français Visitez notre site miroir français Recent Posts Guest Essay This is Why New Welfarists Should Stop Equivocating on Moral Principles Concerning Animals A Response to Mercy For Animals Incremental Reform in the Human Context Is Not Analogous to Welfare Reform and Single Issue Campaigns in the Nonhuman Context The Animals Need YOU A Report from the Intersectional Justice Conference Why Welfare Reform Campaigns and Single Issue Campaigns Necessarily Promote Animal Exploitation When Intersectional Justice Means Promoting Meat Fish Dairy Imagine If There

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/social-justice-human-rights-and-being-vegan/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • A Simple Question - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    Why are HSUS ASPCA Farm Sanctuary Mercy for Animals Animal Legal Defense Fund Compassion Over Killing Compassion In World Farming CIWF The Humane League and World Society for the Protection of Animals campaigning for enriched battery cages particularly when HSUS and CIWF have explicitly acknowledged that enriched cages fail to provide an acceptable level of welfare Why are PETA HSUS Farm Sanctuary Mercy for Animals Compassion Over Killing Viva and Vegan Outreach signing a public letter expressing appreciation and support to Whole Foods for its pioneering program of happy exploitation Yes I know we won t have a vegan world overnight the favorite way of welfarists to mischaracterize the abolitionist position but we don t have to get the whole world to go vegan overnight We just need to build a solid vegan movement of 10 But let s be conservative and say that we need to reach 20 We could do that But we ll never get there as long as we are telling people that they can do right by animals by consuming happy animal products We will of course appeal to donors who want to continue eating animals and are happy to pay for a stamp of approval from animal advocates so that they can consume animal products with a clear conscience 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 If you want it Gary L Francione Professor Rutgers University 2013 Gary L Francione Related posts A Frequently Asked Question What About Plants Abolition Simple Concepts and a Pop Quiz A Simple Resolution for the New Year It s Really Very Simple A Simple Thought

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-simple-question/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Do Chimpanzees, Dolphins, and Elephants Matter More? - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    way be regarded as necessary But most of us consume animals and animal products which involve imposing horrible suffering and violent death even under the most humane circumstances What justification do we have for imposing this suffering and death We do not need to eat animal foods to be healthy And animal agriculture is an ecological disaster Our best justification palate pleasure Nothing more In an important sense we are all Michael Vick In an essay I wrote in 2005 for The New Scientist I argued that the idea that those animals who deserve to be considered as nonhuman persons are those special animals who are more like us chimpanzees dolphins elephants etc is not surprisingly embraced by those who want to claim that only some animals the higher ones matter morally and that it s still okay to keep eating lower animals This way of thinking about animal ethics is similar to saying that people of color with lighter skin matter more than those with darker skin They are more like us where us refers to the racist norm that being white is what s right To say that the animals who matter more morally are those who are like us is nothing more than the reinforcement of speciesism and not a refutation of it As far as morality is concerned a chicken weighs as much an elephant It is time to rethink animal ethics in a more fundamental way 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 If you want it Gary L Francione Professor Rutgers University 2013 Gary L Francione Related posts Elephants They May

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/do-chimpanzees-dolphins-and-elephants-matter-more/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Abolition: Making Sure the Means and the End Are Consistent - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    a means to the end of no use This is similar to using war as an means to the end of nonviolence and peace The welfarist who claims to be an abolitionist argues that gentle or compassionate or happy use is a morally acceptable means to the end of no use See the problem I maintain that abolitionist is properly used only if the means are consistent with the end and the means I advocate are veganism on the individual level and creative nonviolent vegan advocacy on the social level The end is no use and the means chosen to get to the end are no use on the individual level and advocacy of no use on the social level Abolition as I use that term rules out welfare regulation Abolition as I use that term rules out the position that happy use is an acceptable way to get to no use just as I regard war as a morally unacceptable way to achieve peace 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 And never ever buy into the nonsensical notion that we need to promote happy exploitation in order to get people to go vegan It s the opposite the entire happy exploitation industry has one goal to make the public more comfortable about animal exploitation The World is Vegan If you want it Gary L Francione Professor Rutgers University 2013 Gary L Francione Related posts Means And Ends Making a Mockery of Gandhi Abolition Simple Concepts and a Pop Quiz Killing Animals and Making Animals Suffer Abolition and Incremental Reform Share this entry Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/abolition-making-sure-the-means-and-the-end-are-consistent/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive



  •