ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

antishitstem wrote:Firstly, imagine that X=death penalty, Y=capitalist exploitation and Z=killing non-humans for food, these three practices are considered morally acceptable in some societies but there are people in these societies who fight against death penalty (X), and if you follow the logic of the argument above what they do is wrong because they don't even call for the abolition of capitalism (Y) nor for the abolition of the killing of non-humans (Z).

This analogy does not work. Capitalist exploitation as such does not constitute a rights violation. Animal exploitation does; it violates the pre-legal right of every sentient being not to be anyone's property. This insight is what animal advocacy needs to convey to the public in a speciesist society, and this is not conveyed by focusing on one form/ practice, or product of animal exploitation -- which is not the equivalent of human exploitation in a capitalist system but an inherently immoral institution: slavery. Since all animal foods are products of animal slavery, singling out one without explicitly opposing all others and without taking an unequivocal stance against animals' property status does not challenge it but reinforces it.
In contrast, groups fighting death penalty do so on the grounds that it is a violation of human rights – the most basic of which is to have the status of a rightsholder, a person, and the personhood of humans is consented on in all societies. That is why focusing on one human rights issue does not implicitly send the message that there are no others.

antishitstem wrote:[I]f you say that killing animals for food is wrong because they have an interest in a continued life, this implicitly sends the message that it is also wrong to kill them for fuel, because their interest remains the same.

Why, then, is there a movement for the abolition of meat and none for the abolition of killing animals for food, especially given that the latter makes up the overwhelming part of animal exploitation worldwide (very likely 98 %, as you said)?

Liberacion-Igualdad wrote:I understand that all of them rely on the killing of other animals, but don't you think that the latter two can be reformed and continue the exploitation of other animals without having to kill them?

The question was addressed to Anushavan, but my answer is: No, definitely not. Everyone knows that one cannot get meat from a living being, but the exploitation of nonhumans for any food purposes necessitates their being killed at some point, for reasons of economic efficiency. And if people decided not to eat flesh while still consuming milk and eggs, other ways of disposing of the carcasses in an economically efficient way would be found (for example in the way depicted by Panthera in her hypothetical scenario).

Liberacion-Igualdad wrote:Anushavan, I think I understand your position. The point of calling out for the abolition of something, instead of exclusively talking to individuals about changing their lifestyles is a good one, and I agree with it. We should do both.

You say here that you agree that we should call out for the abolition of something, but in the end of your message you say that we shouldn't talk about just one type of exploitation but of all of them which comes back to the notion that we should do exclusively education and should just talk to individuals so that they change their lifestyle. Two incompatible ideas. Your thinking is confused because there is a big confusion shared by a lot of activists between the dissemination of moral theory (which can of course arrive to the conclusion that capitalism, speciesism, the practices of exploiting nonhuman animals for eggs, killing them for fuel, considering them as a property, riding horses and squashing insects are all wrong) and the action against practices to create a public debate and eliminate them of the society. Disseminating moral theory is good but not enough. It is simple to realize that we have also to act against particular practices if we want change, social movements work this way.

Calling for the abolition of meat, eggs and dairy, like I did with my animal rights group, is still wrong if I consistently follow your logic, because it doesn't talk about exploitation for silk, about horse-riding and about the use of rats to find landmines.

So the movement for the abolition of animal food would have had exactly the same criticisms, because it doesn't talk about all exploitation. And I'm sorry but just saying that all injustice and rights violations are wrong is a very bad strategy.

Liberacion-Igualdad wrote:The other problem I see is that this movement only talks about the issue of killing. So, even if succesful, it doesn't make a single claim about other basic interests that other animals have, such as an interest in their authonomy/freedom, in avoiding pain and suffering, experiencing pleasure, etc.

Animal welfare organizations already talk about these interests but they never mention the interest of nonhuman animals in a continued life. And do you seriously think that these things won't be mentioned in the public debate? Moreover talking just about exploitation won't be correct, a hunter who kills a duck doesn't exploit her, a fisher who catches a fish, tortures and kills her but doesn't exploit her. If you talk about killing you make a simple claim that people can easily understand.

Liberacion-Igualdad wrote:Again, we could have a world with no "meat" but with eggs, dairy, wool, zoos, certain experiments with other animals, circuses, rodeos, horse-riding, and a big etc.

Of course Samuel, but knowing that meat eating and horse-riding won't be abolished the same day, like cannibalism and human slavery weren't abolished the same day, and even if personnally I will continue to say that horse-riding is wrong it is still a moral imperative to create a movement that focuses specifically on meat. Waiting to abolish meat only the day when the society will understand that horse-riding is wrong will be for me like making 1 billion rights violations a day... I would feel as an accomplice of what is happening to nonhuman animals in the slaughterhouses every day.

Moreover we have to realize that meat has an enormous psychological power on human/non-human relationships. How many times I saw people saying to me that fur/animal circuses/animal experimentation are ok because there is no problem with eating meat. Eating meat is eating someone, and this is psychologically very different from other exploitations. We have to use this for the benefit of nonhuman animals and abolish the practice that causes the biggest harm to them, instead of denying it.

James wrote:

antishitstem wrote:Firstly, imagine that X=death penalty, Y=capitalist exploitation and Z=killing non-humans for food, these three practices are considered morally acceptable in some societies but there are people in these societies who fight against death penalty (X), and if you follow the logic of the argument above what they do is wrong because they don't even call for the abolition of capitalism (Y) nor for the abolition of the killing of non-humans (Z).

This argument is disanalogous to mine. A formally analogous argument would be this. Suppose that the economic exploitation of men (x), and of women (y), is considered morally acceptable. Suppose also that we live in a society in which sexism is institutionalized. In this society, if you called for the abolition of x, without also unequivocally calling for the abolition of y, then, it is reasonable to assume, you would implicitly send the message that x is relevantly different from y.

If the XYZ argument is correct this means that if you change what X, Y and Z are in other practices that are also considered as morally acceptable in the society, then calling for the abolition of X would always be saying that Y is ok. But my example clearly shows that this is not the case. And again the movement for the abolition of meat doesn't talk about some animals (men) but about all animals (men, women and all other animals).

James wrote:Furthermore; suppose that human slavery exists as a socially sanctioned institution. Suppose also that no one denies that slaves have an interest in continued existence. In this society, if you called for the abolition of the death penalty against slave owners, because they have an interest in continued existence, would this be taken to apply to slaves, because they also have an interest in continued existence? No, it would not. Why? Because slaves interets are not taken (morally) seriously.

If everyone knows that slaves have an interest in continued existence, and if you call for the abolition of death penalty by saying that slave-owners shouldn't be killed because they have an interest in continued existence then it is absolutely certain that it implicitly sends the message that killing slaves is wrong, because everyone knows that they also have an interest in a continued existence. You can speculate that this implicit message won't be applied because there is a difference between slave-owners and slaves who are property but nevertheless there is such a message. By the way to come back to the subject, in the movement for the abolition of meat we don't talk about slave-owners and clearly say that slaves shouldn't be killed.

James wrote:The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to animal slaves. When animal species are accorded differential moral valuations -- when the interests of some animals are taken more seriously than those of others -- why should we assume that single issue campaigns will be taken to apply to all animal species and to all forms of animal exploitation, equally and without exception?

The movement for the abolition of meat will aplly to all animal species because it clearly talks about all animal species and it won't apply to all animal exploitation because it doesn't talk about all animal exploitation and says nothing about the exploitation of dogs for the blind, but it will nevertheless send the message that killing animals for other reasons is also wrong.

James wrote:

antishitstem wrote:Thirdly, there is no non-speciesist way to accept the activism for the abolition of death penalty (if it doesn't make claims against ageism, capitalism and speciesism) if you don't accept the activism for the abolition of meat/animal food. Especially when we know that the practice of murdering sentient beings for food causes much more victims than death penalty.

But it doesn't follow from this that we should support the movement for the abolition of meat. We support the abolition of meat as part of our campaign to abolish the property status of animals. But we don't support the separation of the former from the latter.

No, it doesn't follow that you should support the movement for the abolition of meat but it follows that if you agree to support the movement against death penalty (number of victims: about 5'000) even if it doesn't talk about ageism, capitalism and all rights violations of non-humans, but you refuse to support the abolition of meat (number of victims: about 500'000'000'000 if we count sea animals) because it doesn't talk about other rights violations, you defend a very speciesist position. (Your support for a movement defending 5'000 individuals from rights violations if they are humans VS your refusal to support a movement defending 500'000'000'000 individuals from rights violations when they are not from our species)

James wrote:

antishitstem wrote:If you consider the abolition of 98% of animal exploitation as a single-issue you can consider the abolition of animal exploitation as a single-issue too.

I consider it a speciesist betrayal not to campaign for the rights of all animals.

So do I and our difference is that I know how work social movements.

Karin wrote:

antishitstem wrote:Firstly, imagine that X=death penalty, Y=capitalist exploitation and Z=killing non-humans for food, these three practices are considered morally acceptable in some societies but there are people in these societies who fight against death penalty (X), and if you follow the logic of the argument above what they do is wrong because they don't even call for the abolition of capitalism (Y) nor for the abolition of the killing of non-humans (Z).

This analogy does not work. Capitalist exploitation as such does not constitute a rights violation. Animal exploitation does; it violates the pre-legal right of every sentient being not to be anyone's property. This insight is what animal advocacy needs to convey to the public in a speciesist society, and this is not conveyed by focusing on one form/ practice, or product of animal exploitation -- which is not the equivalent of human exploitation in a capitalist system but an inherently immoral institution: slavery. Since all animal foods are products of animal slavery, singling out one without explicitly opposing all others and without taking an unequivocal stance against animals' property status does not challenge it but reinforces it.

I can very easily change the word « capitalism » into « spying » ( Article 12 of the declaration of human rights: « No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence. ») or with something else and the argument will remain the same. But capitalism in my point of view does violate the rights of workers who don't possess the means of production. Owning the means of production is a fundamental right, without it all other rights are for me like rights to welfare. Capitalism certainly is an inherently immoral institution

Anushavan

antishitstem wrote:[A] hunter who kills a duck doesn't exploit her, a fisher who catches a fish, tortures and kills her but doesn't exploit her.

Sorry, I don't follow. Someone who kills someone else for reasons of pleasure, amusement, or convenience exploits her as a mere means to his ends. The cow slaughtered for meat only is being as much exploited as the cow who ends up in the slaughterhouse after having been kept alive longer for milk. Exploitation does not necessarily imply usage prior to the killing.

antishitstem wrote:Eating meat is eating someone, and this is psychologically very different from other exploitations.

Nonhumans don't care whether or not their bodies are being consumed after they have been killed. And they are being killed for milk and eggs and leather and wool as much as they are for meat. ''There is every bit as much suffering and death in a glass of milk, ice cream cone, or an egg, as there is in a steak.'' (Gary L. Francione) Eating flesh is a rights violation. So is consuming or using any animal product. There is no morally relevant difference. That's why veganism is a moral baseline. Distinguishing psychologically between a steak and a cheese pizza, or between fur and leather, springs from making a moral distinction, and making it the guideline of animal advocacy is inimical to abolition.

antishitstem wrote:But capitalism in my point of view does violate the rights of workers who don't possess the means of production. Owning the means of production is a fundamental right, without it all other rights are for me like rights to welfare. Capitalism certainly is an inherently immoral institution

So not owning the means of production is morally similar to being slaughtered?

In response to Cass Sunstein's objections to the analysis of animals' property status, Gary Francione writes in Animals as Persons (2008):

Sunstein maintains that ''(i)n many domains, human beings seem to be 'used', and the relevant practices are not objectionable for that reason.''... He argues that ''[w]hen you hire a plumber, a lawyer, an architect, or someone to clean your house, you are treating them as means, not as ends.'' .. Although it is true that we use others as means to our ends, we are not allowed to treat them exclusively as means to ends. We can, for instance, value our plumber as a means to the end of repairing a leak. But if we do not think that the plumber is competent, we are not allowed to treat her solely as an economic commodity all of whose interests may be ignored if it benefits us to do so. We cannot enslave the incompetent plumber in a forced-labour camp; we cannot use her as a nonconsenting subject in a biomedical experiment or as an unwilling organ donor. Even if we do not value the plumber as a plumber, she still has residual value that prevents us from valuing her fundamental interests at zero. (p. 103, footnote 125)

An employer may treat her employees instrumentally and disregard their interest in a midmorning coffee break, or even their interest in health care, in the name of profit. But there are limits. She cannot force her employees to work without compensation. Pharmaceutical companies cannot test new drugs on employees who have not consented. Food-processing plants cannot make hot dogs or luncheon meats out of workers. To possess the basic right not to be treated as property is a minimal prerequisite to being a moral and legal person; it does not specify what other rights the person may have. (p. 51)

Pointing this out is necessary because Sunstein ''fails to recognize ... the distinction between treating another as a means to an end and treating another exclusively as a means to an end''(p. 167), because he ''fails to distinguish between the basic, pre-legal moral right not to be a resource and legal rights'' (p. 168) such as the right to free speech which, as Sunstein argues, can be overridden by a prohibition on writing graffiti on national monuments, an example which to consider relevant in the context of the incontestable structural implications of animals' legal status as property, ''indicates a certain distance on his [Sunstein's] part from the reality of animal exploitation'' (p. 169), as Francione understatingly notes.

This is theory. The one that informs abolitionist action.

antishitstem wrote:Disseminating moral theory is good but not enough. It is simple to realize that we have also to act against particular practices if we want change, social movements work this way.

If action is to be effective in changing prevailing practice, it needs to be informed by theory; action that is not informed by theory – or by the wrong one – is nothing but chaos and suited only to reinforcing the status quo. The abolitionist approach to animal rights is about consistency of theory and practice, of means and ends, because that is the way an animal rights movement can achieve change. Due to the fundamental disagreement on this point, there is, as James stated, no common ground between those who engage in activism such as the abolition-of-meat campaign and abolitionists. That's why any debate between the two camps must come to an end, and so this post will be my last one in this thread.

Karin wrote:

antishitstem wrote:[A] hunter who kills a duck doesn't exploit her, a fisher who catches a fish, tortures and kills her but doesn't exploit her.

Sorry, I don't follow. Someone who kills someone else for reasons of pleasure, amusement, or convenience exploits her as a mere means to his ends. The cow slaughtered for meat only is being as much exploited as the cow who ends up in the slaughterhouse after having been kept alive longer for milk. Exploitation does not necessarily imply usage prior to the killing.

You're right. With your definition killing is exploitation. But for me when someone kills another person and by that action uses her as a means to an end it is simply a murder. I don't know if a lot of articles about the Columbine High School massacre described it as exploitation.

Karin wrote:

antishitstem wrote:Eating meat is eating someone, and this is psychologically very different from other exploitations.

Nonhumans don't care whether or not their bodies are being consumed after they have been killed. And they are being killed for milk and eggs and leather and wool as much as they are for meat. ''There is every bit as much suffering and death in a glass of milk, ice cream cone, or an egg, as there is in a steak.'' (Gary L. Francione) Eating flesh is a rights violation. So is consuming or using any animal product. There is no morally relevant difference. That's why veganism is a moral baseline. Distinguishing psychologically between a steak and a cheese pizza, or between fur and leather, springs from making a moral distinction, and making it the guideline of animal advocacy is inimical to abolition.

I agree that there is no morally relevant difference between meat and milk, but if someone thinks a little s/he can clearly understand that it is possible to say that there is no morally relevant difference between 2 things but nevertheless admit that there actually is a psychological difference for the psychological beings that humans are, we can repeat « there is no morally relevant difference » how many million times we want but the psychological difference will still be there. So the question is should we use this to abolish a practice that represents an enormous part of animal exploitation (billion victims each year) and make the biggest progress ever for nonhuman animals even if human psychology is not totally coherent and rational, or should we continue to see fishes, cows, pigs, geese, chickens, sheep, rabbits, turkeys... being murdered every day until humans realize that all rights violations are wrong?

Karin wrote:

antishitstem wrote:But capitalism in my point of view does violate the rights of workers who don't possess the means of production. Owning the means of production is a fundamental right, without it all other rights are for me like rights to welfare. Capitalism certainly is an inherently immoral institution

So not owning the means of production is morally similar to being slaughtered?

In response to Professor Cass Sunstein's objections to the analysis of animals' property status, Gary Francione writes in Animals as Persons (2008):

Sunstein maintains that ''(i)n many domains, human beings seem to be 'used', and the relevant practices are not objectionable for that reason.''... He argues that ''[w]hen you hire a plumber, a lawyer, an architect, or someone to clean your house, you are treating them as means, not as ends.'' .. Although it is true that we use others as means to our ends, we are not allowed to treat them exclusively as means to ends. We can, for instance, value our plumber as a means to the end of repairing a leak. But if we do not think that the plumber is competent, we are not allowed to treat her solely as an economic commodity all of whose interests may be ignored if it benefits us to do so. We cannot enslave the incompetent plumber in a forced-labour camp; we cannot use her as a nonconsenting subject in a biomedical experiment or as an unwilling organ donor. Even if we do not value the plumber as a plumber, she still has residual value that prevents us from valuing her fundamental interests at zero. (p. 103, footnote 125)

An employer may treat her employees instrumentally and disregard their interest in a midmorning coffee break, or even their interest in health care, in the name of profit. But there are limits. She cannot force her employees to work without compensation. Pharmaceutical companies cannot test new drugs on employees who have not consented. Food-processing plants cannot make hot dogs or luncheon meats out of workers. To possess the basic right not to be treated as property is a minimal prerequisite to being a moral and legal person; it does not specify what other rights the person may have. (p. 51)

Pointing this out is necessary because Sunstein ''fails to recognize ... the distinction between treating another as a means to an end and treating another exclusively as a means to an end''(p. 167), because he ''fails to distinguish between the basic, pre-legal moral right not to be a resource and legal rights'' (p. 168) such as the right to free speech which, as Sunstein argues, can be overridden by a prohibition on writing graffiti on national monuments, an example which to consider relevant in the context of the incontestable structural implications of animals' legal status as property, ''indicates a certain distance on his [Sunstein's] part from the reality of animal exploitation'' (p. 169), as Francione understatingly notes.

This is theory. The one that informs abolitionist action.

I had already understood that you don't think that capitalism is a welfarist slavery nor a rights violation. And I have told you that I could easily change « capitalism » with the word « spying » (a clear rigthts violation), and that what I said on the XYZ argument will remain valid. So it was totally pointless to write all this, especially since I know the quoted text. But this is not a problem, you are a human and humans don't always act rationally because they are psychological beings too.

Karin wrote:

antishitstem wrote:Disseminating moral theory is good but not enough. It is simple to realize that we have also to act against particular practices if we want change, social movements work this way.

If action is to be effective in changing prevailing practice, it needs to be informed by theory; action that is not informed by theory – or by the wrong one – is nothing but chaos and suited only to reinforcing the status quo. The abolitionist approach to animal rights is about consistency of theory and practice, of means and ends, because that is the way an animal rights movement can achieve change.

In human societies, moral theory and social change are two relatively autonomous and different fields even if they can have connections. Moral theory in its field needs coherence to succeed, we can see this in a debate between two scholars like Professor Cass Sunstein and Professor Gary Francione. Social change in its field needs political strategy (and not total coherence) to succeed, we can see this in a conflict between a social movement and the state.

If the women's rights movement was conducted by total coherence instead of political strategy women would still not have the right to vote because the movement would also say that women have to be paid for the work that they do in households and that other animals should also have their interests protected by legal rights.

It is clear that we have to understand the fact that moral theory and social change are two different fields that function differently.

Karin wrote:Due to the fundamental disagreement on this point, there is, as James stated, no common ground between those who engage in activism like the abolition-of-meat campaign and abolitionists. That's why any debate between the two camps must come to an end, and so this post will be my last one in this thread.

Thank you Karin for your contribution to this discussion.

Anushavan