ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

Dear abolitionists and vegans!

Please spread the word about "humane" farms and forward this link http://peacefulprairie.blogspot.com/2007/11/faces-of-free-range-farming.htmlto Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary video to as many people as you can.

If we don't act and don't educate others: activists, who took welfare turn, and consumers, who buy "welfare" products, the animals will be left alone to be exploited and killed.

Thanks for posting this. Remember, these are so-called "free-range" hens, not even so-called "cage-free" hens, meaning the hens in the video were still less confined than the hens whose "cage-free" exploitation is being promoted by most of the national, and many grassroots, organizations. Many people have a fantasy that exploitation can be kind and humane. Among these is Peter Singer, president of Animals Rights International, who wrote in the book Animal Liberation:

Assuming you can get free-range eggs, the ethical objections to eating them are relatively minor. Hens provided with shelter and an outdoor run to walk and scratch around in live comfortably. They do not appear to mind the removal of their eggs. They will be killed when they cease to lay productively, but they will have a pleasant existence until that time.

Supposedly, it is said, Animal Liberation is the book that started the "modern animal rights movement." So it shouldn't be too shocking that the wealthiest and most popular, in terms of membership, animal advocacy organizations are quick to endorse "free-range" or "cage-free" egg production, and are enthusiastically touting the massive growth in these forms of exploitation.

Twenty years after writing in Animal Liberation that he did NOT "object to free-range production," Singer finally visited a "free-range" facility exploiting hens in New Hampshire. In The Way We Eat, Singer, with Jim Mason, wrote that they were "surprised to see so many birds so densely packed into one shed. It wasn't what we'd imagined an organic farm would be like." In the end, Singer and Mason chose to ignore reality in favor of the deluded fantasy that the hens were "contented" with their exploitation. In the end Singer and Mason recommend consumers "buy the more expensive but better-tasting eggs from hens free to move around inside sheds."

Still, to be fair, Singer does not promote or otherwise support veganism. In the essay "A Response" published in Singer and His Critics, Singer wrote that he does NOT "advocate veganism to others, or at least not to those who are not already in the animal movement, because at the present stage of development of our society's concern for animals, this seems to be asking more than most people are prepared to give. In other words, to advocate veganism may be counterproductive." Of course, Singer also doesn't recognize veganism as a social movement, and since Animal Liberation has consistently treated veganism as merely a synonym for strict vegetarianism.

Interestingly, Singer has much less trouble advocate "free range" eggs and "even meat" as a treat to a magazine readership that is made up entirely of vegan supporters. In an interview with The Vegan, which goes out to the membership of The Vegan Society, Peter Singer gave his endorsement for "a world in which people mostly eat plant foods, but occasionally treat themselves to the luxury of free range eggs, or possibly even meat from animals who live good lives under conditions natural for their species, and are then humanely killed on the farm."

Daniel wrote: In the essay "A Response" published in Singer and His Critics, Singer wrote that he does NOT "advocate veganism to others, or at least not to those who are not already in the animal movement, because at the present stage of development of our society's concern for animals, this seems to be asking more than most people are prepared to give. In other words, to advocate veganism may be counterproductive."

I knew about his comment that sometimes a vegan couple might go to a restaurant and allow themselves the "luxury" of eating a non-vegan meal. Yes, the luxury of cruelty. But I had no idea he actually said that advocating veganism might be counterproductive. Who wrote/edited Singer and His Critics?

Daniel wrote:Interestingly, Singer has much less trouble advocate "free range" eggs and "even meat" as a treat to a magazine readership that is made up entirely of vegan supporters. In an interview with The Vegan, which goes out to the membership of The Vegan Society, Peter Singer gave his endorsement for "a world in which people mostly eat plant foods, but occasionally treat themselves to the luxury of free range eggs, or possibly even meat from animals who live good lives under conditions natural for their species, and are then humanely killed on the farm."

Yes, the "father" of the animal rights movement advocated nonveganism to the Vegan Society. It couldn't get any worse.

panthera wrote:I knew about his comment that sometimes a vegan couple might go to a restaurant and allow themselves the "luxury" of eating a non-vegan meal. Yes, the luxury of cruelty. But I had no idea he actually said that advocating veganism might be counterproductive. Who wrote/edited Singer and His Critics?

Singer and His Critics is edited by Dale Jamieson. In the essay, Singer is responding to R.M. Hare's essay "Why I'm Only a Demi-Vegetarian." The two essays really don't offer much of a difference in their arguments.

Hare says that vegetarianism is too extreme and Singer says "veganism," by which he means strict vegetarianism, is too extreme. Both are very conservative in that they're more cautious about change than they are interested in promoting it.

The use of terms in these essays is very sloppy and only adds confusion to vegetarianism and veganism. For instance, Hare claims to be a "demi-vegetarian" who eats "little" meat and is "careful" what kind of meat. Hare would likely be called a "flexitarian" by some, or what Singer is calling a "conscientious omnivore." But of course Hare is really a pseudo-vegetarian, i.e. not any sort of a vegetarian. Vegetarians by definition don't eat meat -- not even a little and no matter how much they know about where it comes from.

The problem is that Singer goes along with Hare's "demi-vegetarian" by claiming to have been a "demi-vegetarian" when he eat fish and mollusks but is now a "full vegetarian" even though he still consumes eggs and dairy. A full vegetarian is a person who abstains from animals foods altogether. The word vegetarian means a person one who lives on the products of the vegetable kingdom, i.e. vegetables, fruit, grain and seed. It was later that the "with or without eggs and dairy" was tacked onto vegetarian. So if there is a such thing as a "demi-vegetarian" it is a vegetarian who has a diet with eats eggs and dairy -- the full vegetarian being without eggs and dairy.

In "A Response," Singer also claims to have "subsequently moved to a near-vegan diet." That means Singer has moved to a near-fully vegetarian diet. Veganism isn't a diet. Veganism is a philosophy, principle or way of life that leads to a strict vegetarian diet, but it isn't the diet itself. Singer's philosophy remains nowhere near vegan, and it continues to move the animal advocacy movement in the opposite direction.