ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

[sheepdog]

I thought this was implied. Of course I can't protect every animal against every harm, only intentional harm from myself; and to the best of my ability, intentional harm from others.

Exactly. Your qualifications greatly improve the idea. Agreed.

But I don't think any animal (except perhaps humans with fetishes) even like pain to begin with.

You can eliminate the harm that you do. You cannot eliminate the pain that another experiences. To say that you seek to minimize the amount of pain is to imply that you believe that they must experience some pain, and you will be the judge as to how much is enough in your pursuit of your goal. That idea is blatantly welfarist, and certainly is the basis for justifications for vivisection. It is by setting an unachievable ideal that welfarists can justify any degree of barbarity. This is another of the many ways they frame the debate to cook the conclusions.

But we cannot hide from the harm that we do unnecessarily. In that responsibility is solely and undeniably ours.

And if I can get that pain to none, that's the ultimate goal. Nowhere did I mean to imply, or did I imply, that animals SHOULD feel some pain. Of course pain is pretty much an inevitability as you say. I've been thinking about this recently; life is pretty much pain. Why cause even MORE intentional pain than already exists.

Exactly, it is welfarist to say that things SHOULD feel a level of intentional pain. I didn't say this!

But you do say that you want to get pain to none. You say that is the ultimate goal. None is a level of pain. With this idea we are now arguing about , What is "None"? How close does one have to be to be "None". From this thinking arises the arguments that, if animals can be given "enough pain medication" during vivisection, then their pain is reduced to the level of "None" and we achieve the goal. This is an argument that is framed by welfarists for the benefit of welfarists. As an argument for Abolition it simply fails.

I believe we understand each other that pain is an important component in determining in a particular situation if harm is being caused. Of course. But the level of pain is not the point. It is the harm that is present and whether it is necessary or not. After all, harm may occur without pain too.

Abolition is not about levels of pain and whether or how much another should or should not experience. Abolition is about seeing that we cause harm unnecessarily and ceasing to -- setting others free from us. If that is the same as Utilitarianism I'm all for it.

[James]

As in the ARCO forum, where a similar discussion is currently taking place, Singer uses retrospection to make claims that some vivisection is justified. Of course this is only looking through hindsight. To me, as I said in the other forum, this wouldn't have even been allowed to begin with as it would be causing MORE pain to creatures unnecessarily. Therefore it's only justified AFTER the fact, and can never be justified DURING because it breaks utilitarian principles. And more often then not, vivisection is often futile, produces misleading results, or no results at all. This would NOT be a gamble I would take from my utilitarian stance.

It does not matter that utilitarianism probably never would justify vivisecton. The problem is that, with utilitarianism, it has a deliberative voice (however marginal) in a piece of practical reasoning. No amount of casuistry can narrow the gap between people who think that vivisection could in principle be justified (even though it is very unlikely that these conditions would ever obtain), and those for whom it does not even have a deliberative voice.

[EcoTribalVegan]

But you do say that you want to get pain to none. You say that is the ultimate goal. None is a level of pain. With this idea we are now arguing about , What is "None"? How close does one have to be to be "None". From this thinking arises the arguments that, if animals can be given "enough pain medication" during vivisection, then their pain is reduced to the level of "None" and we achieve the goal. This is an argument that is framed by welfarists for the benefit of welfarists. As an argument for Abolition it simply fails.

That would be ideal yes. Impossible though. Some animals cause pain in order to survive. Self-preservation, as I have said, is the only reason to cause pain. And I consider psychological pain/distress a factor. Animals clearly exhibit signs of this when in captivity. Also, the administering of medication often causes pain and trauma in and of itself. Pinning the animal down, injecting needles and tubes, etc. It's not completely painless by itself...

I believe we understand each other that pain is an important component in determining in a particular situation if harm is being caused. Of course. But the level of pain is not the point. It is the harm that is present and whether it is necessary or not. After all, harm may occur without pain too.

Physical pain is paramount, as it is a sign of physical injury, but as I stated, psychological pain is a factor. I thought I mentioned this in my intro. Maybe I left it out, because I do recall mentioning it either here, or in the ARCO forum, or both. This is part of the reason I was hoping to transfer most of the conversation from ARCO.

Abolition is not about levels of pain and whether or how much another should or should not experience. Abolition is about seeing that we cause harm unnecessarily and ceasing to -- setting others free from us. If that is the same as Utilitarianism I'm all for it.

Maybe I jumped the gun. But as I said, my view of the end-point of Utilitarian philosophy is that of libertarian egalitarianism.

[EcoTribalVegan]

As in the ARCO forum, where a similar discussion is currently taking place, Singer uses retrospection to make claims that some vivisection is justified. Of course this is only looking through hindsight. To me, as I said in the other forum, this wouldn't have even been allowed to begin with as it would be causing MORE pain to creatures unnecessarily. Therefore it's only justified AFTER the fact, and can never be justified DURING because it breaks utilitarian principles. And more often then not, vivisection is often futile, produces misleading results, or no results at all. This would NOT be a gamble I would take from my utilitarian stance.

It does not matter that utilitarianism probably never would justify vivisecton. The problem is that, with utilitarianism, it has a deliberative voice (however marginal) in a piece of practical reasoning. No amount of casuistry can narrow the gap between people who think that vivisection could in principle be justified (even though it is very unlikely that these conditions would ever obtain), and those for whom it does not even have a deliberative voice.

As I said, I don't condone any testing, except on willing participants. The pain caused, the psychological trauma of being violated and caged and the fact that there are alternatives make it unjustifiable. I have said that.

[ben1971]

Exactly. It is quite enough to say, "I will not do harm to you." To say, I will protect you from harm has the equivalent problem of saying, I will try to minimize your pain, not the least of which is that it is simply unrealistic. And by being unrealistic it is designed to fail. And by failing to result in change, the status quo, which is welfarism, is thereby sustained. Change must be achieved by change actually occurring -- successfully.

EcoTribalVegan: I am not accusing you of saying this. But I am exploring the meaning of the words you write.

Hi,

I agree that it would seem patronising to try to eliminate all harm through constant supervision but isn't any sort of vegan literature aimed at education done with the aim of trying to protect non human's from harm?

Would not "I will do no harm to you" really mean being vegan as far as diet and personal choices go, and stopping there? Surely it is an inherent part of veganism to promote it rather than to restrict it to ourselves. Unless we only promote it by example then we have to talk about the change before it occurs. The whole point is to ask that harm be stopped rather than minimised, not just by ourselves but by others too...

I didn't think you were trying to say we shouldn't try to educate, but I was confused

[sheepdog]

Hi,

I agree that it would seem patronising to try to eliminate all harm through constant supervision but isn't any sort of vegan literature aimed at education done with the aim of trying to protect non human's from harm?

Would not "I will do no harm to you" really mean being vegan as far as diet and personal choices go, and stopping there? Surely it is an inherent part of veganism to promote it rather than to restrict it to ourselves. Unless we only promote it by example then we have to talk about the change before it occurs. The whole point is to ask that harm be stopped rather than minimised, not just by ourselves but by others too...

I didn't think you were trying to say we shouldn't try to educate, but I was confused

Hi, Ben. Thank you for your thoughts.

Let me ask you this. Which do you find more compelling, more believable, more interesting and more moving? On the one hand the person who hands you literature about his beliefs, and on the other the person who demonstrates through his actions his beliefs? To me it seems obvious. I learn from others based upon what they do, not what they say. It's fine if you want to explain yourself. That's fine but it's no substitute for acting. And I personally don't see the necessity to explain. It is your actions which show me a different way of being and thereby open the possibilities for me. The effect is, if you can do it, so could I.

"Vegan" is dangerous. It's easy to become complacent. "Just be 'vegan' and that's all I need to do." Not for me. I need to cease all harm. It is not enough to stop eating them. It is harmful to take land from the animals. I must find a way to live without using their land. It is harmful to create roads upon which they are crushed. I must find a way to travel without roads. It is harmful to use them as pets. I must find a way to live without using them as pets.

Where are the "vegans" advocating a vision of the non-use of the land, the non-use of roads and airplanes, the non-use of pets? Veganism is too narrow-minded to ever effect change in my opinion. Take action to demand the end of the use of the land, the end of the building of roads, the end of the ownership of pets, and all the other ways that we cause harm.

To the credit of many in this movement, I hasten to add, they do take these ideas to heart and simplify their lives. I certainly respect that and greatly appreciate it, and could myself learn from their examples. Still, we must go farther. Even farther than we imagine we must go today. We must take this to its complete conclusion. The end of all unnecessary harm to all beings. Our imaginations can take us there if we let it.

[ben1971]

Hi, Ben. Thank you for your thoughts.

Let me ask you this. Which do you find more compelling, more believable, more interesting and more moving? On the one hand the person who hands you literature about his beliefs, and on the other the person who demonstrates through his actions his beliefs? To me it seems obvious. I learn from others based upon what they do, not what they say. It's fine if you want to explain yourself. That's fine but it's no substitute for acting. And I personally don't see the necessity to explain. It is your actions which show me a different way of being and thereby open the possibilities for me. The effect is, if you can do it, so could I.

"Vegan" is dangerous. It's easy to become complacent. "Just be 'vegan' and that's all I need to do." Not for me. I need to cease all harm. It is not enough to stop eating them. It is harmful to take land from the animals. I must find a way to live without using their land. It is harmful to create roads upon which they are crushed. I must find a way to travel without roads. It is harmful to use them as pets. I must find a way to live without using them as pets.

Where are the "vegans" advocating a vision of the non-use of the land, the non-use of roads and airplanes, the non-use of pets? Veganism is too narrow-minded to ever effect change in my opinion. Take action to demand the end of the use of the land, the end of the building of roads, the end of the ownership of pets, and all the other ways that we cause harm.

To the credit of many in this movement, I hasten to add, they do take these ideas to heart and simplify their lives. I certainly respect that and greatly appreciate it, and could myself learn from their examples. Still, we must go farther. Even farther than we imagine we must go today. We must take this to its complete conclusion. The end of all unnecessary harm to all beings. Our imaginations can take us there if we let it.

Hi Sheepdog,

I certainly find the demonstration far more compelling...I hadn't thought for a second that you would advocate "Just be 'vegan' and that's all I need to do." But it confused me when you wrote

"It is quite enough to say, "I will not do harm to you.""

as I didn't think, from reading a lot of your previous posts, that was how you saw it.

I agree that 'vegan' is far from being enough and listening to what the people on this site have to say has given me a lot more of a clue as to what might get a little closer to being enough

When I wrote

"Unless we only promote it by example then we have to talk about the change before it occurs."

I was in no way trying to downplay the importance of example...I think example is definitely the Most effective education tool we have.

That said, there must be a place for literature and education other than through example...I don't know Anyone who is living their life as an abolitionist and yet I have, through websites like this one, found out a lot about what it would mean to Really live to this goal. Because of that, I am closer now to understanding and more able to become the demonstration but without the literature, without the discussion, I wouldn't have even known the ideas were there.

[EcoTribalVegan]

Where are the "vegans" advocating a vision of the non-use of the land, the non-use of roads and airplanes, the non-use of pets? Veganism is too narrow-minded to ever effect change in my opinion. Take action to demand the end of the use of the land, the end of the building of roads, the end of the ownership of pets, and all the other ways that we cause harm.

Right here. I don't know if you remember, but you and I had an extensive conversation about primitivism at the ARCO forum. This would ultimately lead to the least amount of harm in way of habitat destruction, environmental erosion, etc...

[sheepdog]

Because of that, I am closer now to understanding and more able to become the demonstration but without the literature, without the discussion, I wouldn't have even known the ideas were there.

Of course. I understand you completely and quite agree. But, Ben, think about this. Where would you be if someone had shown you what it really meant to be an abolitionist, instead of just talked about it?

That's a provocative question. (Sorry. I'm prone to them.) But what I am suggesting to you is that you many not even know how far off you may be.

I do get frustrated by this because I see a lot of talk about abolition. But action is limited. Compare this to the situation with welfarism. Look at how pervasive are the actions taken by welfarists in support of welfarism. Virtually everything about our society is generated by the actions of welfarists to support welfarism. What do the abolitionists do? We stop eating meat. That's good. We stop buying leather. Also good. What else? Not a whole lot. And in another post when I suggest maybe there should be a church or some other social institutions what happened?

If the welfarist society is to be converted into an abolitionist society it can only occur if the abolitionists are at least as committed as the welfarists to putting their whole lives into the expression of abolition every single moment of their lives, in everything that they do. That is the welfarist commitment to welfarism. If we cannot make the same level of commitment then we are wasting our time. Handing out pamphlets just isn't going to make it.

[sheepdog]

Where are the "vegans" advocating a vision of the non-use of the land, the non-use of roads and airplanes, the non-use of pets? Veganism is too narrow-minded to ever effect change in my opinion. Take action to demand the end of the use of the land, the end of the building of roads, the end of the ownership of pets, and all the other ways that we cause harm.

Right here. I don't know if you remember, but you and I had an extensive conversation about primitivism at the ARCO forum. This would ultimately lead to the least amount of harm in way of habitat destruction, environmental erosion, etc...

Now that you remind me, I certainly remember. And I take your point well. But you must admit, you are a rare one. And I respect the broad view that you have taken and encourage you to pursue your path with vigor. We may have debated over primitivism, but I believe we agree on the major point that the entirety of the present society must be eclipsed by another. We certainly need all available voice to raise this alarm.