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".
  • Derecho animal - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    Animals A Series of Interviews by Gooseberry Productions Teorija prava životinja Životinje kao stvari Theorie der Tierrechte Dierenrechtentheorie La théorie des droits des animaux 動物の権利論 Teoria dos direitos animais Teoría sobre los derechos de los animales Tiere als Eigentum Dieren als Eigendommen Les animaux comme propriétés 所有物としての動物 Animais como propriedade Animales como propiedad Tierrechte vs Tierschutz Droits des animaux vs bien être animal Direitos animais vs bem estar animal Derechos de los animales vs bienestar animal Das Tier im Recht Le droit animal Direito Animal Derecho animal 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 Were a Real Animal Rights Movement Challenging Peter Singer s Paternity Claim Business As Usual VegfestUK and the Animal Welfare Industry The Vegan Society Senior Officer of Advocacy and Policy

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/video/das-tier-im-recht/derecho-animal/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Video - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    French Theorie der Tierrechte German 動物の権利論 Japanese Teoria dos direitos animais Portuguese Teoría sobre los derechos de los animales Spanish Animals as Property Professor Francione argues that the property status of animals renders meaningless animal welfare laws that prohibit the infliction of unnecessary suffering and require the humane treatment of nonhumans Professor Francione s book Animals Property and the Law Temple University Press 1995 provided the first legal analysis of the property status of animals and was described by Tom Regan as a work of unquestionable historic importance View Slideshow English Download PDF English Životinje kao stvarin Croatian Dieren als Eigendommen Dutch Les animaux comme propriétés French Tiere als Eigentum German 所有物としての動物 Japanese Animais como propriedade Portuguese Animales como propiedad Spanish Animal Rights vs Animal Welfare Professor Francione argues that there are profound theoretical and practical differences between animal rights and animal welfare He is critical of what he calls new welfarism or the position that incremental improvements in animal welfare will lead to the abolition of animal exploitation These views are contained in Rain Without Thunder The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement Temple University Press 1996 View Slideshow English Download PDF English Dierenrechten vs Dierenwelzijn Dutch Droits des animaux vs bien être animal French Tierrechte vs Tierschutz German Direitos animais vs bem estar animal Portuguese Derechos de los animales vs bienestar animal Spanish Animal Law Professor Francione maintains that animal law ought to be concerned about the incremental abolition of the property status of nonhumans and that the tendency of animal lawyers to focus on anticruelty cases veterinary malpractice pet custody and pet trust cases is mistaken View Slideshow English Download PDF English Le droit animal French Das Tier im Recht German Direito Animal Portuguese Derecho animal Spanish Exploring Rights for Animals A Series of Interviews by Gooseberry Productions Click here for Exploring Rights for Animals A Series of Interviews by Gooseberry Productions Professor Francione Debates Professor Tibor Machan Do Animals Have Rights January 12 2012 Professor Francione Debates Professor Tibor Machan Do Animals Have Rights from Gary L Francione on Vimeo The Use of Animals in Biomedical Research A Moral Justification March 8 2011 The Use of Animals in Biomedical Research A Moral Justification from Gary L Francione on Vimeo Professor Francione on Documentary Project I m Vegan View Vimeo Video 19 Minutes English Adam Kochanowicz Interviews Professor Francione on Moral Schizophrenia and Animal Rights Ideology October 22 2009 Rutgers University School of Law Newark The primary focus of the interview concerns a comprehensive analysis of the animal movement and the importance of veganism Additional topics include economic philosophy our relations with nonhuman animals and the failures of welfarism Download Video 61 Minutes English Professor Francione Delivers Keynote Address at the 2009 JAINA Convention July 3 2009 Jain Center of Southern California JAINA is the Federation of Jain Associations in North America The theme at the 2009 Convention was Ecology The Jain Way Download Video 41 Minutes English Professor Francione Presents Animal Rights and Animal Welfare April

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

  • You searched for - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    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 Were a Real Animal Rights Movement Challenging Peter Singer s Paternity Claim Business As Usual VegfestUK and the Animal Welfare Industry The Vegan Society Senior Officer of Advocacy

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/text/?s= (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • "Why Veganism?" by Eva Batt (1908–1989) - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    the decision is made to go ahead anyway It is not that veganism is so difficult it is simplicity itself but while society and most of the world is geared to animal exploitation and world economics are built upon the generally accepted principle that might is right and the dumb have no rights anything which tends to interfere with or bypass this is not encouraged Also veganism offers nothing for big business to exploit Many people ask why we need to go so far and say that lacto vegetarianism still using dairy products perhaps leather etc is enough for the time being Unfortunately very few vegetarians indeed in our experience really appreciate the present rate of exploitation not from lack of feeling but rather from lack of interest and understanding Unlike vegans a great many vegetarians are concerned chiefly with their health and are prepared for animals to be killed to produced leather cheese margarine etc so long as they do not actually eat the carcass In our opinion it matters not one jot to the innocent creature whether it is to be slaughtered for human food medicine clothing sport or such luxuries as ivory ornaments horn bone or tortoiseshell knick knacks crocodile handbags or exotic perfume Sudden death in the prime of life or the lingering agony of pain and starvation in a steel trap must be as terrifying for the field mouse stoat or rabbit as for the hunted tiger whale or stag What at first may appear to be a quick death for one creature often means a slow starvation for her young ones as well Sometimes it is the baby or rather its skin which is coveted by man What the parent seal feels as she grieves over the bloody remains of her clubbed and quickly skinned pup is probably no different from the anguish of the domestic cow on losing her newly born calf Anyone living near a farm or slaughterhouse has learned the pitiful cries of both mother and calf But the majority of persons on first adopting a lacto vegetarian diet increase their consumption of dairy products and eggs which means that any relief of suffering for the animals exists more in hope than in fact It is surprising to learn how many vegetarians are unaware that the rennet used to curdle many cheeses is obtained from the stomach of a freshly killed very young calf Such cheeses are not of course even lacto vegetarian and we feel that these inconsistencies should be much more widely publicized If however we were to compare degrees of cruelty it would be clearly seen that of all the food animals the cow suffers far more than beef cattle For the whole of her life this soft eyed docile animal is regarded simply as a milk machine She is kept going with drugs and steamed up with hormones injected with antibiotics and still has to suffer the horrors of the slaughterhouse when she has at last become

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/text/why-veganism-by-eva-batt/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Text - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    or Your Lifestyle Choices English A3 Format US Tabloid 11 x17 Format Animals Are the Most Vulnerable Members of Our Society English A3 Format US Tabloid 11 x17 Format It Doesn t Matter If They Had the Best Lives in the World English A3 Format US Tabloid 11 x17 Format Saving a Life Is as Easy as Adopting a Homeless Animal English A3 Format US Tabloid 11 x17 Format The Four Problems of Animal Welfare English PDF Why Veganism by Eva Batt 1908 1989 Written for Here s Harmlessness An Anthology of Ahimsa first published in 1964 by the American Vegan Society This essay offers a fascinating glimpse into the history of the vegan movement Eva Batt residing in England became a vegan in 1954 just ten years after the term was coined In the decades that followed Batt made major contributions to the spread of veganism including two cookbooks and played several roles within the UK Vegan Society including fifteen years as chairperson Audio clip Adobe Flash Player version 9 or above is required to play this audio clip Download the latest version here You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser MP3 21 Minutes English HTTP English PDF English Professor Francione s Article Are we the animal lovers we think we are August 4 2013 N J News HTTP English PDF English Professor Francione s Article Thinking About Mitt Romney and Seamus Michael Vick and Dog Fighting and Eating Animals April 18 2012 Truthout HTTP English PDF English Deb Olin Unferth Interviews Professor Francione on his Controversial Positions on Animal Ethics February 2011 The Believer Magazine PDF English Professor Francione s Article Vegetarianism First Spring 2010 The Vegan Magazine PDF English Professor Francione on his New Book Animals as Persons Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation February 1 2010 ROROTOKO HTTP English Philip Steir Interviews Professor Francione on the Recent Growth of the Abolitionist Movement January 7 2010 Vegan Sanctuary PDF English Professor Francione s Updated Article We re all Michael Vick August 14 2009 Philadelphia Daily News PDF English Professor Francione s Article Ahimsa and Veganism Winter 2009 Jain Digest PDF English Mark Robison Interviews Professor Francione on Animals as Persons August 13 2008 Reno Gazette Journal PDF English Professor Francione s Article We re all Michael Vick August 22 2007 Philadelphia Daily News PDF English Rosamund Raha Interviews Professor Francione on his Theory of Animal Rights Spring 2007 The Vegan Magazine PDF English Professor Francione s Article Humanité animalité quelles frontières Febuary 2007 Le Monde Diplomatique PDF French Professor Francione s Article Pour l abolition de l animal esclave August 2006 Le Monde Diplomatique PDF French Professor Francione s Article Abolition of Animal Exploitation The Journey Will Not Begin While We Are Walking Backwards July 2006 Abolitionist Online no longer active PDF English Claudette Vaughan Interviews Professor Francione on the Abolitionist Theory March 2006 Abolitionist Online no longer active PDF Part 1 English PDF Part 2 English Rebecca Palmer Interviews Professor Francione on

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

  • Quotes - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    is morally preferable to vegetarianism is not possible because we are all on our own journey then moral assessment becomes completely impossible or is speciesist It is impossible because if we are all on our own journey then there is nothing to say to the racist sexist anti semite homophobe etc If we say that those forms of discrimination are morally bad but with respect to animals we are all on our own journey and we cannot make moral assessments about for instance dairy consumption then we are simply being speciesist and not applying the same moral analysis to nonhumans that we apply to the human context 2012 Is veganism a matter of choice That depends on whether you think we have the moral right to choose to exploit the vulnerable for frivolous purposes such as palate pleasure December 22 2012 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 December 16 2012 Vegan food easy cheap fast healthy delicious Don t let anyone tell you anything to the contrary December 6 2012 Got nonviolence Go vegan December 3 2012 If you care about animals there is one and only one choice go vegan Can you choose not to be vegan Sure You can choose not to care December 1 2012 Express your thanks for all you have by resolving not to harm others If you are not vegan celebrate today by going vegan and then let every

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

  • FAQs - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    Hitler was a vegetarian Hitler was evil therefore vegetarians are evil Stalin ate meat and was himself no angel He was responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people What does that say about meat eaters Just as we cannot conclude that all meat eaters have anything in common with Stalin beyond meat eating we cannot conclude that all vegetarians have anything in common with Hitler beyond vegetarianism Furthermore it is not certain that Hitler actually was a vegetarian And in any event the Nazi interest in reducing meat consumption was not a matter of the moral status of animals but reflected a concern with organic health and healing and avoidance of artificial ingredients in food and pharmaceutical products that was linked to the broader Nazi goals of racial hygiene Another version of this question is that since the Nazis also favored animal rights does this mean that animal rights as a moral theory is bankrupt and attempts to devalue humans Once again the question is absurd In the first place the question is based on a factual error The Nazis were not in favor of animal rights Animal welfare laws in Germany restricted vivisection to some degree but they hardly reflected any societal preference for abolishing the property status of animals After all the Nazis casually murdered millions of humans and animals in the course of the Second World War behavior not compatible with a rights position human or otherwise It is no more accurate to say that the Nazis supported animal rights than it is to say that Americans support animal rights because we have a federal Animal Welfare Act But what if contrary to fact the Nazis did advocate the abolition of all animal exploitation What would that say about the idea of animal rights The answer is absolutely clear it would say nothing about whether the animal rights position is right or wrong That question can be settled only by whether the moral arguments in favor of animal rights are valid or not The Nazis also strongly favored marriage Does that mean marriage is an inherently immoral institution The Nazis also believed that sports were essential to the development of strong character Does this mean that competitive sports are inherently immoral Jesus Christ preached a gospel of sharing resources on an equitable basis Gandhi promoted a similar message as did Stalin But Stalin also devalued human beings Can we conclude that the idea of more equitable resource distribution has some inherent moral flaw that taints Jesus or Gandhi No of course not We no more devalue human life if we accord moral significance to animal interests than we devalue the lives of normal humans when we accord value to certain humans such as the severely retarded and prohibit their use in experiments Question 9 Where do you draw the line on who can have rights Do insects have rights Answer I draw the line at sentience because as I have argued sentient beings have interests and the possession of interests is the necessary and sufficient condition for membership in the moral community Are insects sentient Are they conscious beings with minds that experience pain and pleasure I do not know But the fact that I do not know exactly where to draw the line or perhaps find drawing the line difficult does not relieve me of the obligation to draw the line somewhere or allow me to use animals as I please Although I may not know whether insects are sentient I do know that cows pigs chickens chimpanzees horses deer dogs cats and mice are sentient Indeed it is now widely accepted that fish are sentient So the fact that I do not know on what side of the line to place insects does not relieve me of my moral obligation to the animals whom I do know are sentient As a general matter this question is intended to demonstrate that if we do not know where to draw the line in a matter of morality or if line drawing is difficult then we ought not to draw the line anywhere This form of reasoning is invalid Consider the following example There is a great deal of disagreement about the scope and extent of human rights Some people argue that health care and education are fundamental rights that a civilized government should provide to everyone some people argue that health care and education are commodities like any other not the subject of rights and that people ought to pay for them But we would I suspect all agree that whatever our disagreements about human rights however unsure we are of where to draw the line we most certainly agree for instance that genocide is morally wrong We do not say that it is morally acceptable to kill off entire populations because we may disagree over whether humans are entitled to health care Similarly our uncertainty or disagreement regarding the sentience of ants is no license to ignore the interests of chimpanzees cows pigs chickens and other animals whom we do know are sentient Question 10 Do nonsentient humans such as those who are irreversibly brain dead have a right not to be treated as things Answer If a human is really nonsentient not conscious or aware of anything at all and will not regain consciousness or awareness of anything then by definition the human cannot have an interest in not suffering or in anything else In such a situation a compelling argument could be made that it is morally acceptable to use the organs of such a human to save others and it is common practice to do so if the human has previously agreed to donate her organs or if the family consents We should of course be concerned about whether an ostensibly brain dead human really does lack all cognitive activity We ought also to be sensitive to the concerns of those related to the comatose human they may oppose the instrumental use of the human for various reasons such as religious opposition to organ transplantation But humans who are really irreversibly brain dead are really no different from plants they are alive but they are not conscious and have no interests to protect According such humans a basic right not to be treated as the resources of others makes no sense Question 11 If we want to treat similar interests similarly does our recognition that animals have a basic right not to be property mean that abortion should also be prohibited Answer Abortion raises a number of difficult issues particularly because of the religious dimension of the controversy Many who oppose abortion believe that ensoulment occurs at the moment of conception This belief leads some abortion opponents to oppose any measure that will interfere with the subsequent development of the fetus including the use of intrauterine devices or drugs that prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum on the uterus wall As far as these abortion opponents are concerned the fact that a fetus or fertilized ovum is not sentient is irrelevant the fetus has spiritual interests and is considered a full and complete moral being in the eyes of God as soon as it possesses a soul Another complicating factor in the abortion debate is that as a cultural matter the status of a pregnant woman as a mother and of a fetus as a baby tends to kick in immediately after the woman learns that she is pregnant particularly in cases in which the woman wants to have a child That is from the moment of conception or learning of conception we tend to think of the fetus as the human person the baby that it will become But that characterization does not alter the biological fact that a fertilized ovum does not have interests in the way that the baby does If we approach the abortion question outside the framework of religion and souls and outside social conventions that characterize a pregnant woman as a mother and a fetus as a baby from the moment of conception it becomes much more difficult to understand how fetuses particularly early term fetuses may be said to have interests Although it is not certain that any fetuses are sentient it is clear that early term fetuses are not and therefore they do not have interests in not suffering they cannot suffer Moreover it is not clear how nonsentient fetuses can have an interest in continued existence Although a normal fetus will continue to term and result in the birth of a human person the nonsentient fetus cannot itself have an interest in continued existence Sentient beings are those who are conscious of pain and pleasure those with some sort of mind and some sense of self The harm of death to a sentient being is that she or he will no longer be able to have conscious experiences If you kill me painlessly while I am asleep you have harmed me because you have deprived me of having further experiences as a sentient being that I by virtue of the fact that I have not chosen to commit suicide wish to have And our experience of sentient beings other than humans reasonably supports the position that all sentient beings share in common an interest in continuing to live sentience is merely a means to the continued existence of organisms who are able to have mental experiences of pleasure and pain We cannot analogize a fetus and a sleeping person the fetus has never been sentient and therefore has never possessed the interests that are characteristic of all sentient beings If we claim that a nonsentient fertilized ovum has an interest in continued existence simply because there is a high degree of probability that in nine months it will become a child with interests then we are committed to the view that a fertilized ovum has an interest in continued existence immediately upon conception And if we can say that a fertilized ovum has an interest in continued existence immediately upon conception it becomes difficult to understand why we would not also say that a sperm and an egg have interests in conception before their union occurs The primary difference between the fertilized ovum and the sperm and egg concerns probability it is more probable that a fertilized ovum will eventually become a human baby than it is that any particular sperm will fertilize an egg and nothing more To the extent that we might say for instance that it is in the interest of the fetus that the pregnant woman not smoke cigarettes during pregnancy such an assertion is no different from saying that it is in the interest of an engine to be properly lubricated or of a plant to be watered Although it may be prudent for the pregnant woman not to smoke if she has an interest in having a healthy baby just as it is prudent for us to put oil in our cars or to water our plants the nonsentient fetus does not yet have an experiential welfare and does not prefer or want or desire anything In the absence of a religious belief about the ensoulment of fetuses it is difficult to understand why the abortion of an early term fetus is morally objectionable or how abortion can be considered a harm to a nonsentient fetus If the abortion of a nonsentient fetus is morally objectionable then so would be the use of intrauterine devices or drugs such as RU 486 that prevent the attachment to the uterine wall of a fertilized ovum And we may be committed to the view that a sperm and an egg have an interest in being united so that the use of contraception violates the interests of the sperm and the egg Again in the absence of a religious framework such views appear quite untenable What if we determine that some fetuses are sentient Certainly late term fetuses react to certain stimuli It may be the case that such fetuses are sentient and have an experiential welfare In this case it would make sense to say that such fetuses have interests But even if we assume that sentient fetuses have a basic right that prevents their wholly instrumental treatment abortion presents a most unusual conflict of rights One right holder exists within the body of another right holder and is dependent upon her for the very existence that serves as the predicate for the fetus having interests in the first place Such a conflict is unique and protection of fetal interests risks state intrusion on the woman s body and privacy interests in a way that no other protection of the basic right of another requires If a parent is abusing her three year old the state may remove the child in order to protect the child s interests The state cannot protect fetal interests without intruding on the bodily autonomy of the woman and forcing her to continue an unwanted pregnancy But it may be the case that the sentience of fetuses militates in favor of abortion methods that are equally safe for the woman but that preserve the life of the fetus Question 12 If we become vegetarians animals will inevitably be harmed when we plant vegetables and what is the difference between raising and killing animals for food and unintentionally killing them as part of a plant based agriculture Answer If we shift from a meat based agriculture to a plant based agriculture we will inevitably displace and possibly kill sentient animals when we plant vegetables Surely however there is a significant difference between raising and killing animals for food and unintentionally doing them harm in the course of planting vegetables an activity that is itself intended to prevent the killing of sentient beings In order to understand this point consider the following example We build roads We allow people to drive automobiles We know as a statistical matter that when we build a road some humans we do not know who they are beforehand will be harmed as the result of automobile accidents Yet there is a fundamental moral difference between activity that has human harm as an inevitable but unintended consequence and the intentional killing of particular humans Similarly the fact that animals may be harmed as an unintended consequence of planting vegetables even if we do not use toxic chemicals and even if we exercise great care to avoid harming animals does not mean that it is morally acceptable to kill animals intentionally A related question is why don t plants have rights given that they are alive This is the question that every vegetarian gets in the company of meat eater These meat eaters may be otherwise rational and intelligent beings but when confronted with a vegetarian their discomfort with their diet often rises to the surface in the form of defensiveness No one really thinks that plants are the same as sentient nonhumans If I ate your tomato and your dog you would not regard those as similar acts As far as we know plants are not sentient They are not conscious and able to experience pain Plants do not have central nervous systems endorphins receptors for benzodiazepines or any of the other indicia of sentience Plants do not have interests animals do Question 13 Isn t taking advantage of medications or procedures developed through the use of animals inconsistent with taking an animal rights position Answer No it is not Those who support animal exploitation often argue that accepting the benefits of animal use is inconsistent with criticizing the use of animals This position of course makes no sense Most of us are opposed to racial discrimination and yet we live in a society in which white middle class people enjoy the benefits of past racial discrimination that is the majority enjoys a standard of living that it would not have had there been a nondiscriminatory equitable distribution of resources including educational and job opportunities Many of us support measures such as affirmative action that are intended to correct past discrimination But those who oppose racial discrimination are not obligated to leave the United States or to commit suicide because we cannot avoid the fact that white people are beneficiaries of past discrimination against people of color Consider another example assume that we find that the local water company employs child labor and we object to child labor Are we obligated to die of dehydration because the water company has chosen to violate the rights of children No of course not We would be obligated to support the abolition of this use of children but we would not be obligated to die Similarly we should join together collectively and demand an end to animal exploitation but we are not obligated to accept animal exploitation or forego any benefits that it may provide We certainly could develop drugs and surgical procedures without the use of animals and many would prefer we do so Those who object to animal use for these purposes however have no control as individuals over government regulations or corporate policies concerning animals To say that they cannot consistently criticize the actions of government or industry while they derive benefits from these actions over which they have no control is absurd as a matter of logic And as a matter of political ideology it is a most disturbing endorsement of unquestioned obeisance to the policies of the corporate state Indeed the notion that we must either embrace animal exploitation or reject anything that involves animal use is eerily like the reactionary slogan love it or leave it uttered by the pseudo patriots who criticized opponents of American involvement in the Vietnam War Moreover humans have so commodified animals that it is virtually impossible to avoid animal exploitation completely Animal by products are used in a wide variety of things including the asphalt on roads and synthetic fabrics But

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

  • The Meaning of "THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it." - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    required us to harm another innocent human Humans have been known to kill and eat other humans in desert island situations The harm may be excusable in light of the compulsion in both cases It s still morally wrong but the moral culpability is mitigated because of the compulsion In over 30 years of answering questions about choices when one is stranded on a desert island we have yet to ever meet anyone who was stranded on a desert island We have met many people who simply don t want to give up cheese So shall we deal with the real questions please There may be circumstances short of true compulsion in which people have very great difficulty in getting access to vegan food Their conduct may be less immoral than the conduct of others but it is still immoral Abolitionists should apply themselves to addressing the social and other circumstances that place people in these situations but the moral framework is not to be compromised Second many people already accept that harming nonhuman animals in the absence of compulsion is morally wrong Indeed most people believe that harming an animal requires a moral justification and that pleasure amusement or convenience cannot constitute a moral justification That is why many people including nonvegans react so strongly to animal cruelty cases such as those involving Michael Vick and Mitt Romney they already accept that pleasure amusement or convenience cannot justify harming animals Abolitionist vegans urge people to recognize that what they already believe commits them to stop eating wearing or using animals when their only justification is palate pleasure or fashion sense Third if every person who is vegan and who believes that veganism is a moral imperative convinced one other person to go vegan in the coming year and this pattern repeated itself over a period of years the world would indeed be vegan in a relatively brief period of time For example a low estimate of vegans in the United Kingdom is 150 000 and the total population is approximately 65 million If each one of those 150 000 people convinced one other person to go vegan in the next year there would be 300 00 vegans next year and if this pattern repeated itself for an additional eight years 600 000 1 2 million 2 4 million 4 8 million 9 6 million 19 2 million 38 4 million 76 8 million the United Kingdom would be vegan That of course is not going to happen but it does show how much more effective vegan education and advocacy can be if we choose to promote it rather than to pursue the welfarist campaigns and single issue campaigns that promote continued animal exploitation In sum THE WORLD IS VEGAN If you want it 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

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/14044-2/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive



  •