A thought for the day from the animal advocacy community.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
I'm an abolitionist, but have a different view of how to get there than some others. We can ...
I'm an abolitionist, but have a different view of how to get there than some others. We can learn from each other. Different opinions are healthy, as long as everyone is willing to listen to others. ~ Gene Baur
Saying "I'm an abolitionist who supports welfare reform as a means to the end (abolition)" is like saying "I'm a pacificst who supports war as a means to the end (peace)". I'm sorry, but it's silly to think that we can achieve a noble end by using corrupt means. The ends don't justify the means - the ends are the means.
I'll be glad to listen to neo-welfarists when they can provide an answer as to how promoting slavery (albeit more "humane") can lead to anything other than the perpetuation of slavery.
I don't believe that regulating the exploitation of others will ever lead to that exploitation ending. I believe that insignificant improvements in the way we treat those we continue to enslave and commodify will do quite the reverse, and allow for more and more exploitation.
The reason I chose this particular quote was because, although I personally believe this, I don't have any evidence to suggest my beliefs are correct. In fact, I believe there is more data which suggests the opposite.
I think that Gene's suggestion that
"We can learn from each other. Different opinions are healthy, as long as everyone is willing to listen to others."
is a healthy way for us to think. I think it's vital that we continue to learn and continue to grow and continue to do everything we possibly can in order to determine what it is that WILL end the exploitation of others.
Void of any empirical evidence to support my intuition, I think it would be irresponsible of me to close my mind off to listening to others I disagree with, regardless of how much my intuition tells me I'm right.
I think Gene would be referred to, by some, as a "new welfarist", more than a traditional welfarist. Gary Francione developed that term to describe those who advocate for the abolition of the exploitation of others, using a methodology which incorporates incremental reform. So, I believe (and I'd be happy to be proven incorrect) that even going on Prof. Francione's work in RWT, Gene would be classed as an "abolitionist", by those who follow Gary's approach.
If you are actually interested in an opinion contrary to your own (although given the wording of your comment, I suspect you are not), I suggest you read Prof. Robert Garner's contributions to the book The Animal Rights Debate, co-authored with Gary Francione. Garner argues quite effectively for an incremental solution to the problem of the exploitation of other animals while challenging the abolitionist fundamentalist position equally effectively.
No evidence? What about the fact that after decades of welfarist campaigning, the number of non-humans being used is still on the increase? And the fact that many people on the street seem eagar to dismiss veganism because they're under the impression that they can buy "humane" milk or whatever?
@timgier
Thank you for the recommendation. I've actually been thinking of reading that book for a while now. To be completely frank, the few Francione vs. (insert welfarist here) debates that I've read/listened to thus far have struck me as being in Prof. Francione's favour, but then, those debates weren't with scholars. Perhaps Prof. Garner will be more persuasive.
I apologize if the wording of my comment came across as agressive. However, I would disagree that it is 'fundamentalist' to think that (for example) PETA praising KFC for gassing chickens to death will lead us anywhere except in the direction of KFC killing more chickens.
I would love to see the evidence which supports your opinion, if you know of any data, I'd be very interested.
Could it not also be said that after decades of rights based and abolitionist campaigning, the number of other animals being used is still on the increase?
Do you think that many people on the street would be embracing veganism, if it were not for the availability of "humane" and "free range" products?
I'm eager to see any empirical evidence that supports your opinions.
I suppose that if it makes absolutely no difference to chickens that they are killed by having their throats slit, often while fully conscious, then it makes no sense for PeTA to lobby those businesses who are going to continue killing chickens by the billions to find less gruesome ways to kill them. Surely, as advocates for other animals though, we must believe that chickens do care about how they are killed?
Also, I guess if it's true that people refuse to become vegan because of the availability of "humane meat" then what we ought to do is raise and kill other animals in the most vicious ways possible, in order to remove that excuse. People ought not to have any illusions about how other animals suffer, and if those other animals headed for slaughter today have to suffer horribly so that more people become vegan, that's a sacrifice I suppose those poor souls must make. Of course, there's absolutely no evidence that "humane meat" increases the overall consumption of other animals nor that the availability of "humane meat" either prevents people from becoming vegan or causes them to discontinue being vegan, so I reject the entire premise anyway.
Saying "I'm an abolitionist who supports welfare reform as a means to the end (abolition)" is like saying "I'm a pacificst who supports war as a means to the end (peace)". I'm sorry, but it's silly to think that we can achieve a noble end by using corrupt means. The ends don't justify the means - the ends are the means.
ReplyDeleteI'll be glad to listen to neo-welfarists when they can provide an answer as to how promoting slavery (albeit more "humane") can lead to anything other than the perpetuation of slavery.
Hi Maya,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment!
I don't believe that regulating the exploitation of others will ever lead to that exploitation ending. I believe that insignificant improvements in the way we treat those we continue to enslave and commodify will do quite the reverse, and allow for more and more exploitation.
The reason I chose this particular quote was because, although I personally believe this, I don't have any evidence to suggest my beliefs are correct. In fact, I believe there is more data which suggests the opposite.
I think that Gene's suggestion that
"We can learn from each other. Different opinions are healthy, as long as everyone is willing to listen to others."
is a healthy way for us to think. I think it's vital that we continue to learn and continue to grow and continue to do everything we possibly can in order to determine what it is that WILL end the exploitation of others.
Void of any empirical evidence to support my intuition, I think it would be irresponsible of me to close my mind off to listening to others I disagree with, regardless of how much my intuition tells me I'm right.
I think Gene would be referred to, by some, as a "new welfarist", more than a traditional welfarist. Gary Francione developed that term to describe those who advocate for the abolition of the exploitation of others, using a methodology which incorporates incremental reform. So, I believe (and I'd be happy to be proven incorrect) that even going on Prof. Francione's work in RWT, Gene would be classed as an "abolitionist", by those who follow Gary's approach.
Again, thanks for your comment!
Maya,
ReplyDeleteIf you are actually interested in an opinion contrary to your own (although given the wording of your comment, I suspect you are not), I suggest you read Prof. Robert Garner's contributions to the book The Animal Rights Debate, co-authored with Gary Francione. Garner argues quite effectively for an incremental solution to the problem of the exploitation of other animals while challenging the abolitionist fundamentalist position equally effectively.
@Carolyn
ReplyDeleteNo evidence? What about the fact that after decades of welfarist campaigning, the number of non-humans being used is still on the increase? And the fact that many people on the street seem eagar to dismiss veganism because they're under the impression that they can buy "humane" milk or whatever?
@timgier
Thank you for the recommendation. I've actually been thinking of reading that book for a while now. To be completely frank, the few Francione vs. (insert welfarist here) debates that I've read/listened to thus far have struck me as being in Prof. Francione's favour, but then, those debates weren't with scholars. Perhaps Prof. Garner will be more persuasive.
I apologize if the wording of my comment came across as agressive. However, I would disagree that it is 'fundamentalist' to think that (for example) PETA praising KFC for gassing chickens to death will lead us anywhere except in the direction of KFC killing more chickens.
Hi Maya,
ReplyDeleteI would love to see the evidence which supports your opinion, if you know of any data, I'd be very interested.
Could it not also be said that after decades of rights based and abolitionist campaigning, the number of other animals being used is still on the increase?
Do you think that many people on the street would be embracing veganism, if it were not for the availability of "humane" and "free range" products?
I'm eager to see any empirical evidence that supports your opinions.
Thanks!
Maya,
ReplyDeleteI suppose that if it makes absolutely no difference to chickens that they are killed by having their throats slit, often while fully conscious, then it makes no sense for PeTA to lobby those businesses who are going to continue killing chickens by the billions to find less gruesome ways to kill them. Surely, as advocates for other animals though, we must believe that chickens do care about how they are killed?
Also, I guess if it's true that people refuse to become vegan because of the availability of "humane meat" then what we ought to do is raise and kill other animals in the most vicious ways possible, in order to remove that excuse. People ought not to have any illusions about how other animals suffer, and if those other animals headed for slaughter today have to suffer horribly so that more people become vegan, that's a sacrifice I suppose those poor souls must make. Of course, there's absolutely no evidence that "humane meat" increases the overall consumption of other animals nor that the availability of "humane meat" either prevents people from becoming vegan or causes them to discontinue being vegan, so I reject the entire premise anyway.