We should always be clear that animal exploitation is wrong because it involves speciesism. And speciesism is wrong because, like racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism, classism, and all other forms of human discrimination, speciesism involves violence inflicted on members of the moral community where that infliction of violence cannot be morally justified. But that means that those of us who oppose speciesism necessarily oppose discrimination against humans. It makes no sense to say that speciesism is wrong because it is like racism (or any other form of discrimination) but that we do not have a position about racism. We do. We should be opposed to it and we should always be clear about that.
Gary L. FrancioneTags: wisdom life education animals justice inspirational-quotes global-warming veganism health exploitation slavery racism nonviolence sexism extinction rights abolition ahimsa moral-obligation classism climate-change abolitionist sentience speciesism vulnerable peace-movement peace-on-earth heterosexism francione nonviolence-jainism peace-making moral-imperative ableist
We can no more justify using nonhumans as human resources than we can justify human slavery. Animal use and slavery have at least one important point in common: both institutions treat sentient beings exclusively as resources of others. That cannot be justified with respect to humans; it cannot be justified with respect to nonhumans—however “humanely” we treat them.
Gary L. FrancioneTags: wisdom life education animals justice inspirational-quotes veganism exploitation slavery nonviolence rights abolition ahimsa abolitionist sentience peace-movement peace-on-earth francione nonviolence-jainism peace-making
Animals are property. There are laws that supposedly protect animal interests
in being treated “humanely,” but that term is interpreted in large part to mean that we cannot impose “unnecessary” harm on animals, and that is measured by what treatment is considered as necessary within particular industries, and according to customs of use, to exploit animals. The bottom line is that animals do not have any respect-based rights in the way that humans have, because we do not regard animals as having any moral value. They have only economic value. We value their interests economically, and we ignore their interests when it is economically beneficial for us to do so.
At this point in time, it makes no sense to focus on the law, because as long as we regard animals as things, as a moral matter, the laws will necessarily reflect that absence of moral value and continue to do nothing to protect animals. We need to change social and moral thinking about animals before the law is going to do anything more.
Tags: wisdom life education animals justice inspirational-quotes veganism exploitation slavery nonviolence rights abolition ahimsa abolitionist sentience peace-movement peace-on-earth francione nonviolence-jainism peace-making
Forty-two years after Dr. King was murdered, we are still a nation of inequality. People of color, women, gays, lesbians, and others are still treated as second-class citizens. Yes, things have changed but we have still not achieved equality among all humans. And nonhuman animals continue to be chattel property without any inherent value.
Gary L. FrancioneTags: animals racism womens-rights sexism speciesism heterosexism chattel-property inherent-value nonhuman
If you are not vegan, please consider going vegan. It’s a matter of nonviolence. Being vegan is your statement that you reject violence to other sentient beings, to yourself, and to the environment, on which all sentient beings depend.
Gary L. FrancioneTags: justice peace inspirational-quotes veganism exploitation nonviolence abolition abolitionist animals-rights
I reject animal welfare reform and single-issue campaigns because they are not only inconsistent with the claims of justice that we should be making if we really believe that animal exploitation is wrong, but because these approaches cannot work as a practical matter. Animals are property and it costs money to protect their interests; therefore, the level of protection accorded to animal interests will always be low and animals will, under the best of circumstances, still be treated in ways that would constitute torture if applied to humans.
By endorsing welfare reforms that supposedly make exploitation more “compassionate” or single-issue campaigns that falsely suggest that there is a coherent moral distinction between meat and dairy or between fur and wool or between steak and foie gras, we betray the principle of justice that says that all sentient beings are equal for purposes of not being used exclusively as human resources. And, on a practical level, we do nothing more than make people feel better about animal exploitation.
Tags: wisdom life education animals justice inspirational-quotes veganism exploitation slavery nonviolence rights abolition ahimsa abolitionist sentience peace-movement peace-on-earth francione nonviolence-jainism peace-making
We proclaim human intelligence to be morally valuable per se because we are human. If we were birds, we would proclaim the ability to fly as morally valuable per se. If we were fish, we would proclaim the ability to live underwater as morally valuable per se. But apart from our obviously self-interested proclamations, there is nothing morally valuable per se about human intelligence.
Gary L. FrancioneTags: intelligence fish humans birds behaviour species morally-valuable
When we say that humans have a “right” not to be used for these purposes, this means simply that the interest of humans in not being used as non-consenting subjects in experiments will be protected even if the consequences of using them would be very beneficial for the rest of us. The question, then, is why do we think that it is morally acceptable to use nonhumans in experiments but not to use humans?
Vivisection, Part Two: The Moral Justification of Vivisection | Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
Tags: utilitarianism vivisection animal-experimentation moral-justification
One of the main arguments that I make is that although almost everyone accepts that it is morally wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering and death on animals, 99% of the suffering and death that we inflict on animals can be justified only by our pleasure, amusement, or convenience. For example, the best justification that we have for killing the billions of nonhumans that we eat every year is that we enjoy the taste of animal flesh and animal products. This is not an acceptable justification if we take seriously, as we purport to, that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering or death on animals, and it illustrates the confused thinking that I characterize as our “moral schizophrenia” when it comes to nonhumans.
A follow-up question that I often get is: “What about vivisection? Surely that use of animals is not merely for our pleasure, is it?”
Vivisection, Part One: The “Necessity” of Vivisection | Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
Tags: ethical health justification utilitarianism rights moral personhood welfare alternative vivisection
The distinction between meat and other animal products is total nonsense. Vegetarianism is a morally incoherent position. If you regard animals as members of the moral community, you really don’t have a choice but to go vegan.
Gary L. FrancioneTags: vegetarianism milk vegan dairy francione animal-products moral-incoherent
« first previous
Page 4 of 5.
next last »
Data privacy
Imprint
Contact
Diese Website verwendet Cookies, um Ihnen die bestmögliche Funktionalität bieten zu können.