The False Message of the New Welfarists

/in /by

Dear Colleagues:

One of the subscriptions that I have is to a newsletter entitled Farmed Animal Watch that is produced periodically by Farmed Animal Net, which is a joint effort of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Farm Sanctuary, The Humane Society of the United States, and others.

For the most part, Farmed Animal Watch reports on investigations into “abuses” in the meat/animal products industries and various efforts that are undertaken by industry and governmental agencies to “improve” the treatment of these animals. According to its website:

Farmed Animal Net strives to be an objective, trustworthy source of academic and industry information for animal advocates, educators, researchers, the media, legislators, and others.

As an educator, I am all in favor of a source of “objective, trustworthy” information. But I am also concerned with the normative message that is conveyed by many of the stories in Farmed Animal Watch.

For example, in the most recent edition (April 8, 2009), the following story appears:

1. ABUSE ALLEGED AT NEW ENGLAND’S LARGEST EGG FARM

State police and Maine Department of Agriculture officials raided an egg facility known as Maine Contract Farming and Quality Egg of New England on April 1st, after Mercy for Animals (MFA) filed a complaint for civil and criminal charges to be brought against the facility and workers there. An MFA investigator allegedly documented animal abuse at the facility from mid-December to February. “It really indicated to us that there appeared to be some very deplorable and egregious animal welfare violations over there,” state veterinarian Don Hoenig said of the documentation, which included: supervisors and other workers kicking live hens into manure pits, holes in cage floors large enough for hens to fall into the pits below, hens with body parts stuck in caging including some 150 who were unable to access food or water, cages with decomposed bodies and rotting eggs, inhumanely killed hens and live hens in the garbage (see: http://tinyurl.com/cf2gaa ).

The general problem with this sort of recitation is that although it purports to be a statement of facts, it carries an implicit normative message: that there is some difference between the Maine facility, which involves “abuse,” and other intensive egg operations. The reality is that there may be small differences but the treatment of all of the hens in the egg industry is properly characterized as nothing short of torture.

The Farmed Animal Watch story reports that Radlo Foods, a major east coast egg distributor, announced that “it will sever ties with Quality Egg and plans to “‘become an exclusively cage-free company within 10 years,’ which reportedly will make it the first national egg company to do so.” This suggests that there is some significant difference between conventional battery eggs and “cage-free” eggs. But as the excellent educational materials produced by the Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary show quite clearly, any such suggestion is nonsense. Torture is torture. The walls of the torture chamber may be painted a nice color and have a few paintings, but it is still a torture chamber and any “improvements” are primarily to make those inflicting the torture feel better about their surroundings and their conduct toward the victims.

As an abolitionist, it is my view (and I have presented the argument in numerous essays and other materials on this site as well as in my books and articles) that we cannot justify the use of sentient nonhuman animals irrespective of whether the treatment is “humane” or not. That is, even if we could raise animals without any suffering and distress and kill them painlessly, it would still be morally wrong to do so because the life of every sentient being has moral value that precludes our treating that being exclusively as a resource. But the practical reality is that we cannot raise animals without any suffering and distress and kill them painlessly; the practical reality is that every animal product that we consume–whether from a local supermarket or from some upscale vendor of “happy” meat/animal products or from a smaller local farm–is the result of treatment that would clearly and unequivocally be considered as torture were humans the victims. Some places may be less brutal than others but all are terrible; all involve suffering, distress, and deprivation; all involve death.

The new welfarist movement, which promotes the idea that we can make this system of violence and death better or more “humane,” is promoting a message that I believe to be false. I accept that the new welfarists are acting in good faith when they promote “cage-free” eggs, gassing chickens, or measures such as California’s Proposition 2. I just think that they are seriously wrong and I see no evidence that suggests that all of these campaigns are doing anything more than making humans feel more comfortable about consuming nonhumans.

We certainly ought to make clear to the public the nature of the treatment of the animals we consume. But we also should make it clear that this system cannot be fixed in any way that would address the fundamental moral concerns. We should not promote the idea that some of this is “abuse” and some is not. It’s all abuse. It’s all morally unjustifiable. We should never use the word “humane” to describe any component of this machine of violence, torture and death.

Recently, Home Box Office presented a documentary entitled Death on a Factory Farm, which involved the horrors of a pig farm in Ohio. The usual response from those who saw this documentary was: “yes, that was a horrible farm but they’re not all that bad are they?” The short answer is: yes, they are all that bad and to the extent that some are better, they are still horrible. There is a difference between being tortured for 3 hours and being tortured for 3 hours and five minutes. But is the former morally acceptable or “humane” because it involves 5 minutes less torture?

We have got to get away from this fantasy that it is possible ever to produce animal products without torture. It’s impossible. Period. I repeat that I would still regard killing nonhumans to be morally wrong even if this were not the case, but it is the case. Consuming animals necessarily means that we support torture.

There is one response to the recognition that sentient nonhumans are full members of the moral community: we should go vegan and use creative, nonviolent means to educate everyone we can to do the same. We will never shift the moral paradigm if our message is that the problem is “abuse” at some egg factory in Maine or that the “cage-free” egg is anything more than an artifice that makes us feel better about exploiting them.

Gary L. Francione
© 2009 Gary L. Francione

Some Comments on the Kristof ‘Happy Meat’ Editorial

/in /by

Dear Colleagues:

Today’s New York Times had an editorial by Nicholas D. Kristof. The editorial was an ode to animal welfare and of the supposed progressive ethical development that welfare reform bespeaks.

Forgive me for not sharing Mr. Kristof’s enthusiasm.

Rather than make a point-by-point reply, I will limit myself to three general comments.

First, the examples to which Mr. Kristof points are leading candidates in the contest to identify the most futile welfare reforms of modern history. These include California’s Proposition 2, the European Commission Directive on battery eggs, and the unholy alliance between animal rights groups and Burger King. I have written about all of these previously and I have argued that they will do nothing to help animals.

Second, citing these various “happy meat” reforms, Kristof states:

For most of history, all of this would have been unimaginable even to people of the most refined ethical sensibility (granted, for many centuries those refined ethicists were also untroubled by slavery).

This is a rather astonishing statement. Mr. Kristof does not seem to be aware that Jainism, one of the three indigenous religious traditions of India, and arguably one of the oldest spiritual traditions in the world, has, for several thousand years, maintained that nonhuman animals have inherent moral value. Jains maintain that the observance of the principle of Ahimsa, or non-violence, requires that Jains be vegetarians and not eat meat, fish, or eggs, and Jains are increasingly adopting a strict vegetarian or vegan position. Buddhism and Hinduism also have strong traditions of vegetarianism. So despite the pat on the back that Kristof gives to Western welfarists, those of more “refined ethical sensibility” had, centuries ago, gone way beyond these supposedly progressive contemporary developments.

Mr. Kristof is also apparently unaware that animal welfare in Western civilization is nothing new. We have had animal welfare as a dominant legal and moral paradigm for about 200 years now, and we are presently exploiting more animals in more horrific ways than at any time in human history. It is quite simple: animal welfare does not work. Animal welfare regulations provide very little protection for animal interests. That is because animals are property; they are economic commodities. It costs money to protect animal interests and, for the most part, we do so only when we derive an economic benefit. So we will require that large animals be stunned before they are butchered so that we can decrease carcass damage and limit injuries to slaughterhouse workers. But if we do not get an economic benefit from protecting an animal interest, we don’t protect that interest. It is that simple and one must look far and wide to find a single significant counterexample.

Animal welfare rests on the notion that it is acceptable to use animals for human purposes because they are of lesser moral value than humans. This notion is reflected in the theory of Peter Singer, whom Kristof discusses approvingly in the editorial. The primary requirement of animal welfare is that we accord animals some consideration for their interest in not suffering. But given the view that animal life is of little or no moral significance, it should come as no surprise that the degree of that consideration is very low.

Third, Mr. Kristof, despite what are his obvious good intentions, misses the basic point that the “happy meat” reforms that he enthusiastically praises will only make the public feel better about animal exploitation and continue the consumption of animal products. For example, even if California’s Proposition 2 comes into effect in 2015, animals in California will continue to be tortured; the only difference will be that the torture will carry the stamp of approval from the Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, and the other animal welfare corporations that promoted Proposition 2.

Mr. Kristof proves my point. In the penultimate sentence of his editorial, he states: “For my part, I eat meat, but I would prefer that this practice not inflict gratuitous suffering.”

That says it all.

Gary L. Francione
© 2009 Gary L. Francione

The Great ‘Victory’ of New Welfarism

/in /by

Dear Colleagues:

In my work, I have argued that animal advocates should not spend their time and resources on single-issue campaigns because as long as there is no political base in favor of abolishing animal exploitation, there can be no realistic hope for legislation that will significantly protect animal interests through the prohibition of various forms of animal exploitation. The new welfarists, who favor single-issue campaigns and who do not agree that the vegan-abolitionist approach is necessary, often point to the British ‘ban’ on hunting foxes with hounds as the showcase example of how animal welfare regulation can work to protect animal interests.

I suggest that the advocates of new welfare are in error.

The ‘ban’ on fox hunting is a classic example of the futility of single-issue welfarist campaigns.

The ‘ban’ supposedly prohibits using hounds to hunt foxes but allows hunters to use hounds to follow a scent and to flush out a fox. It is legal for hunters to use hounds to flush out a fox (or other wild mammal) and then shoot the animal or use a falcon to kill the animal. Supporters of hunting are flouting the law and encouraging exploitation of all loopholes with the result that more foxes are being killed than before the ‘ban.’

The BBC reports that four years after the ‘ban’ went into effect:

Not a single hunt has gone out of business, there are twice as many registered hounds as there were three years ago and – according to the Alliance – the number of people hunting is up by 11%.

With the Conservatives ahead of Labour in the opinion polls – and promising a free vote on the Hunting Act if they win the next election – supporters of hunting say repeal is now a probability rather than a possibility.

It is clear that the ‘ban’ on fox hunting is anything but a ‘ban’ and is a classic example of the futility of single-issue welfare reform.

The matter of animal exploitation requires a moral paradigm shift. That shift must begin with creative, nonviolent vegan education.

Gary L. Francione
© 2009 Gary L. Francione

Animal Experiments Increase in Britain

/in /by

Dear Colleagues:

Defenders of animal welfare often claim that the animal protection movement in Britain has been successful in decreasing the number of experiments performed with live animals.

The data show that there has been a 21% increase in animal experiments since 1997.

Gary L. Francione
© 2009 Gary L. Francione

And You Wonder Why We Suffer from Moral Schizophrenia?

/in /by

Dear Colleagues:

Here is an example—one of unfortunately many—of the way that we confuse children about the morality of animal exploitation. One one hand, we encourage children to feel affectionately about nonhumans through the use of animal characters. On the other hand, we use those same animal characters to sell animal products that have been produced by engaging in the torture of nonhuman animals.

Is it any wonder that we develop moral schizophrenia when it comes to animals? Is it any wonder that the overwhelming number of us agree strongly that it is wrong to inflict ‘unnecessary’ suffering and death on animals but the best justification we have for imposing suffering and death on 53 billion animals per year (not including fish) is that we enjoy the taste? Is it any wonder that we regard certain animals as members of our families while we simultaneously stick forks into the corpses of other animals?

Gary L. Francione
© 2009 Gary L. Francione

The “commonplace reality of producing livestock for consumption”

/in /by

Dear Colleagues:

Home Box Office recently aired a documentary, Death on a Factory Farm. The documentary concerns an undercover investigation of the Wiles Hog Farm in Ohio. The investigator, who worked for the Humane Farming Association, secretly filmed the hideous treatment of the animals and brought his evidence to the local prosecutor, who filed ten criminal charges against Wiles, his son, and an employee.

The outcome of the prosecution? Only one charge resulted in conviction. The punishment? A $250 fine and required training in pig handling and transportation. The defendants and other farmers who supported the defendants argued that the practices depicted in the documentary were not criminal and represented “the commonplace reality of producing livestock for consumption.”

And they were right.

What is depicted in the documentary is, indeed, nothing short of torture. But what happened at the Wiles Farm was no different from what transpires on every large factory farm. What was depicted in the documentary is commonplace. If you ate pork last night, that animal was subjected to more or less the same sort of treatment.

That is why animal advocates should not support the efforts of animal welfare organizations to make animal exploitation more “humane.” Animal exploitation on the scale needed to feed even a small portion of the world’s human population cannot be made more “humane” in any significant way. The economics of production and the property status of animals make it impossible—not just difficult—impossible. We would, of course, still have to deal with the moral question of whether animal use can be justified irrespective of how “humane” it is, but we can be assured that it will never be “humane” because it will always involve a significant degree of torture.

Welfarist reforms such as California’s Proposition 2 or the campaign in favor of gassing chickens are similar to putting pretty wallpaper in a torture chamber. Just as the wallpaper may make those inflicting the torture feel better about their surroundings, these reforms make those who exploit animals—and that includes everyone who supports the demand by consuming flesh, dairy, eggs, etc.—feel better about the fact that they consume animals. Just as the wallpaper does nothing of any significance for the human victims of torture, the window dressing of animal welfare reforms does little for the animal victims of torture.

There is really just one morally sound and practical response to animal exploitation: go vegan and devote whatever time and resources you have to creative, nonviolent vegan education.

Gary L. Francione
© 2009 Gary L. Francione

More on Violence and Animal Rights

/in /by

Dear Colleagues:

A number of people have written to me in the past several weeks asking that I blog on the use of violence in the struggle for animal rights. I already did an essay—A Comment on Violence—on this topic and I direct those interested to that essay. My forthcoming book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, which I am writing with political scientist Dr. Robert Garner of the University of Leicester, will also address this topic.

I would like to supplement my previous essay with the following thought.

There are those who claim that creative, nonviolent vegan education, which is what I propose that we pursue in order to shift the moral paradigm, is insufficient because that approach will not work fast enough given the severity of the problem and the various social, political, economic, and ecological consequences of animal exploitation.

I do not doubt that animal use is nothing short of a disaster in every respect and that it is the most significant contributing factor to the overall peril of our planet. But it is beyond pure fantasy to believe that violence, even if it were morally justifiable, which I maintain it is not, is going to be the solution that will move things along faster and address this admittedly alarming situation in an effective way.

As I mentioned in my earlier essay, most humans see animal use as the default, “normal” position. Acts of violence cannot be seen as anything other than attacks on conduct that is regarded by most people as entirely unobjectionable and morally acceptable (at least as long as it is “humane”).

Engaging in violence, which will necessarily be interpreted by most people as pathological, is not going to cause people to think that animal use is objectionable; if anything, violence will serve the ends of those who want to portray any effort to shift the paradigm—including peaceful and nonviolent efforts—as part of an overall pathological and objectionable ethic. Promoting violence is not only inconsistent with the ethic of peace; it will serve to frustrate its acceptance.

Creative, nonviolent vegan education is hard work. But, unlike the alternatives, it is the only option that will shift the paradigm and result in a fundamentally different way of assessing the underlying moral issue. Unlike the alternatives, creative, nonviolent vegan education can work to cause a revolution—of the heart.

In the end, those are the only revolutions that work.

Gary L. Francione
©2009 Gary L. Francione

“Gateway” Arguments

/in /by

Dear Colleagues:

It is spring break at the University so I am using the extra time to do some blogging!

I want to address a set of related arguments that are commonly referred to as “gateway” arguments. The three primary gateway arguments are: (1) that we should promote some version of vegetarianism that allows for eating dairy products, eggs, or even fish as a gateway to veganism; (2) that we should promote “happy” meat/animal products, such as KFC chicken that has been gassed rather than electrocuted, or “cage-free” eggs, as a gateway to lacto-ovo-pesco vegetarianism and then veganism; and (3) that we should promote animal welfare reform as a gateway to the abolition of animal exploitation.

I reject these gateway arguments for both theoretical reasons and practical reasons.

As a theoretical matter, even if vegetarianism was a gateway to veganism, or “happy” meat was a gateway to vegetarianism, or welfare reform was a gateway to the social acceptance of abolition, should we promote something that is morally wrong as a way of getting to something morally right? It is, of course, better if a rapist does not beat a rape victim in addition to raping her/him. But does that mean that we should campaign in favor of “humane” rape as a gateway to no rape? Some forms of racism are better than other forms of racism, but would anyone seriously suggest that we should campaign in favor of those supposedly “better” forms of racism? It is better to torture a person less severely than more severely, but would we campaign for “humane” torture?

Of course not. Where issues involving humans are concerned, most of us see the problem and few, if any, of us would campaign for “humane” rape or “humane” racism or “humane” torture.

But where nonhumans are concerned, many of us are ready to jump ship and promote things that we acknowledge violate the fundamental rights of animals. There is no morally significant difference between meat and dairy or between meat and fish. There is as much (if not more) suffering in a glass of milk as in a pound of steak and a fish values her/his life as much as the cow values her/his life. “Happy” meat/animal products do not involve any greater protection for animal interests and these animals are all still treated in ways that involve what would be regarded as torture were humans involved. Welfare reform is a direct equivalent of promoting “humane” rape or “humane” racism.

Therefore, these gateway arguments have the disturbing characteristic of promoting conduct or practices that explicitly violate the fundamental rights of animals when we would never do that in a human context. The gateway approach is speciesist on its face.

As a practical matter, gateway arguments share in common an empirical or factual premise: that lacto-ovo-pesco-vegetarianism will lead to veganism; that “happy” meat/animal products will lead to vegetarianism and veganism; that welfare reform will create a social and political climate more favorable to abolition. In order for gateway arguments to work, it has to be the case that there is a clear causal connection between the gateway component (vegetarianism, “happy” meat/animal products, welfare reform) and the desired goal (veganism, vegetarianism, abolition of exploitation).

The problem is that there is no evidence to support these assertions of causal connection. Although there certainly are vegetarians who have become vegans, there are also many vegetarians who never go vegan. With respect to the claim that “happy” meat/animal products will lead to vegetarianism that will lead to veganism, that claims not only lacks support, but the evidence seems to point in the opposite direction. That is, the “happy” meat movement is actually moving us backwards in that more and more people–including those who were once vegetarian or even vegan–are once again feeling comfortable about consuming animal products. After all, if People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals gives an award to Whole Foods as Best Animal-Friendly Retailer, claiming that “Whole Foods has consistently done more for animal welfare than any retailer in the industry, requiring that its producers adhere to strict standards,” it sends a very clear message that eating the corpses and other animal products sold by Whole Foods is a morally acceptable, even if not morally ideal, thing to do.

The claim that welfare reform is a gateway that will lead to social acceptance and achievement of the abolition of exploitation is also not only without any factual support but is clearly false. The animal welfare approach has been the dominant moral and legal paradigm for 200 years now and we are using more nonhuman animals in more horrific ways than ever before in human history. There is no historical evidence that regulation is a gateway to abolition or leads to abolition in any way; there is no historical evidence that welfare reform leads to anything more than more animal exploitation.

We cannot justify animal exploitation as a matter of basic morality. Gateway arguments are inconsistent with the fundamental rights of nonhumans not to be treated as human resources and rest on factual premises that are not only without support but that are demonstrably false.

Gary L. Francione
©2009 Gary L. Francione

Addendum added August 6, 2009:

What about the argument that many vegans were first vegetarians so we ought to promote vegetarianism rather than veganism?

Even if it were true that most vegans were vegetarians first, that would not mean that we ought to promote vegetarianism. If we explain the moral reasons in support of not consuming any animal products to someone and that person is not ready to go vegan, she will take whatever incremental step she wants to take, including adopting various forms of vegetarianism. But we have left veganism as the aspiration and we have been clear that we cannot draw a morally defensible line between flesh and other animal products.  If we promote any variety of vegetarianism short of veganism, we reinforce the false belief that there is a distinction between meat and dairy or other animal products. So even if vegans usually start off as vegetarians, we ought still to be promoting veganism. I should add that it remains a question in my mind as to whether those taking vegetarian “first steps” do so precisely because that is what they are being advised to do by animal advocates who are confused on this issue.

“Animal Law”: Making the Use of Hooks and Prods More “Humane”

/in /by

Dear Colleagues:

I frequently get inquiries from undergraduate students who tell me that they want to go to law school so that they can study “animal law” and ask my advice about how to become “animal lawyers.” I respond that what is commonly referred to as “animal law”—veterinary malpractice cases, “pet” custody cases, “pet” trust cases, and cruelty cases—does not in any way move nonhuman animals away from their status as human property. Indeed, for the reasons explained in our video on animal law, it further enmeshes them in that paradigm. I tell those students that if they want to do something useful, they should: (1) become vegan; (2) educate others about veganism; and (3) do pro bono work as lawyers for advocates who are promoting veganism and who need legal protection, which is often the case. I have represented many such activists over the years.

The problems with “animal law” are illustrated by a pending lawsuit by a group of welfarist organizations and a former elephant trainer against Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus. The issue is whether the use of hooks and metal-tipped prods to control elephants violates the Endangered Species Act.

According to an article (“Animal rights, circus lawyers differ on elephants”) about the lawsuit:

Under questioning from the judge, Meyer [the attorney for the plaintiffs] acknowledged that not all use of chains and prods would violate the law. She said she hopes that [the judge] will require the circus to get permits from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to use the tools. But she could not say specifically what treatment should be allowed or just how long elephants could legally be kept on chains.

I know Kathleen Meyer, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs. She is a fine attorney. It is, however, sad that the “animal rights” position is that we need to regulate the use of hooks and prods, and require that circuses get permits. The idea that the “animal rights” position concerns how long elephants can be kept on chains is disturbing on a number of levels.

How many dollars contributed to help animals are being used for this effort? More importantly, why does anyone think that this sort of lawsuit will do anything to lead in the direction of abolishing animal exploitation or even providing any increased protection for animals? Perhaps we should consider that the money would be better spent educating people as to why they should not attend circuses that use any nonhuman animals. It is a zero-sum game; every dollar we spend on regulating the use of hooks and prods is a dollar less that we spend on decreasing the demand for such spectacles through creative, nonviolent abolitionist education.

But the issue always comes back to veganism. As long as we are killing 56 billion animals per year for food (not counting aquatic animals) with our best justification being that we enjoy the taste of animal products, it is unlikely that we are going to develop the consciousness that will lead anywhere except to supposedly more “humane” exploitation. Regulating the use of chains and hooks is not going to provide much, if any, benefit to the animals; it will, however, make us feel more comfortable about exploiting them.

But then, making us feel better—making us feel that we are “good” people; making us feel that we are a “humane” society—is what animal welfare and animal law are all about.

Gary L. Francione
©2009 Gary L. Francione

Peter Singer and the Welfarist Position on the Lesser Value of Nonhuman Life

/in /by

Dear Colleagues:

Some animal advocates maintain that there is no real difference between the abolitionist approach and the new welfarist approach of Peter Singer.

I have discussed Singer’s views in previous essays on this site (see, e.g., 1, 2) and in my books and articles, in an effort to illustrate what I regard as the significant theoretical and practical differences in our approaches. Another example appears in a recent interview that Singer did. He states:

You could say it’s wrong to kill a being whenever a being is sentient or conscious. Then you would have to say it’s just as wrong to kill a chicken or mouse as it is to kill you or me. I can’t accept that idea. It may be just as wrong, but millions of chickens are killed every day. I can’t think of that as a tragedy on the same scale as millions of humans being killed. What is different about humans? Humans are forward-looking beings, and they have hopes and desires for the future. That seems a plausible answer to the question of why it’s so tragic when humans die.

Singer quite clearly articulates the welfarist notion that the lives of nonhumans are of lesser moral value than the lives of humans.

Singer’s comments are problematic for several reasons. First, Singer assumes that chickens and other sentient nonhumans are not forward-looking beings. I have had little personal experience with chickens but I know enough about them to conclude that their behavior cannot be explained unless we attribute to them some sort of cognition that is equivalent to what we would characterize as forward-looking in humans. Chickens clearly have interests, preferences, and desires and are able to act to satisfy their interests and preferences. When we kill these nonhumans, we frustrate their ability to enjoy the satisfaction of their interests, preferences, and desires—just as we do when we kill humans.

I have had extensive experience with dogs and I can say quite confidently that I would be astonished if someone were to assert that dogs are not forward-looking beings or that they do not have hopes and desires.

The underlying premise in Singer’s position is that the only way to be forward looking, to have hopes and desires, is to have them in the way that humans do. But that is clearly a speciesist position. Humans have concepts that are linked inextricably with symbolic communication. The cognition of nonhumans is most likely very different from human cognition because nonhumans do not use symbolic communication. But that certainly does not mean that nonhumans do not have equivalent cognitive phenomena.

Second, and more important, is the moral value that Singer assigns to having the ability to plan for the future. What about humans who have transient global amnesia? They have a sense of themselves in the present but are unable to recall the past or plan for the future. Would killing them be morally wrong? Of course it would. Would we judge it as worse (morally or legally) to kill a person who did not have this condition? Of course not. We would regard both killings as equally culpable because in both cases, we have deprived humans of their lives, which matters to them. The life of a chicken is as equally valuable to her as my life is to me or as the life of the person with transient global amnesia is to her.

Moreover, on Singer’s analysis, the life of a human with more hopes and desires would be worth more than the life of a human who had fewer. So the life of a depressed person who may not be particularly excited about or plan for the future, or the life of a poor person, whose hopes and desires are focused on the next meal or a place to sleep for that night, is worth less than, say, the life of a Princeton professor who has lots and lots of hopes and plans for the future.

Singer’s comments reflect—once again—the welfarist notion that our use of animals is not the primary or even a moral problem because, as a factual matter, animals do not have an interest in their lives. That is, welfarists maintain that nonhumans have an interest in not suffering but as they do not have an interest in continued life because they do not have hopes or future desires, we can use them for our purposes as long we treat them ‘humanely.’ Singer clearly accepts the welfarist principle that nonhumans are of less moral value than humans. He clearly, explicitly, and repeatedly rejects the concept of animal rights despite his claim—made again in this interview—that he sought “to create an animal-rights movement.”

Singer’s comments in this interview represent nothing new. He has been saying these things for years starting in Animal Liberation, a book that was not about animal rights but earned Singer the title of “father of the animal rights movement.” It is, however, nothing short of astonishing that so many animal advocates claim that there is no real difference between Singer’s position and the abolitionist approach to animal rights.

To those animal advocates who do not see the differences, I express my sincere and profound dismay.

Gary L. Francione
©2009 Gary L. Francione

ADDED MARCH 22, 2009:

Yesterday, I received an email from someone who remarked:

I recently attended a talk by Peter Singer. I was horrified and mystified to hear him explicitly state that killing animals is not a speciesist act if done painlessly. I have read some of your work, and, of course, object to this assertion. I left the talk feeling angry and let down. Is this really the author of the “Bible of The Animal Rights” movement telling me that it’s ok to kill animals?

As I stated in the preceding essay, no one should be surprised or shocked that Singer does not regard killing animals as per se objectionable. He has been taking this position for at least the past 33 years–ever since he wrote Animal Liberation. Singer does not regard killing animals as speciesist because he does not think that animals have an interest in continuing to live so we do not harm them when we kill them painlessly. As I argued above (and elsewhere) Singer’s position that this is not speciesist rests on the explicitly speciesist premise that animals can have an interest in continuing to live only if they have the sort of reflective self-awareness that we associate with normal adult humans.

What is surprising and shocking is that an “animal rights” movement promotes Animal Liberation as the “‘bible'” of the modern animal rights movement” or embraces and promotes Singer as “father of the modern animal movement”.

Many people criticize Singer because he characterizes his position as the “animal rights” view. Peter should certainly not do that as it is not accurate and he knows that and has acknowledged it explicitly on a number of occasions.

But the primary responsibility lies with animal advocates who have apparently never even bothered to read Animal Liberation before making it the “bible” and who have in any event not taken the time to think critically about the meaning of “animal rights.”

Never before in human history has a social movement been so very deeply confused.

Gary L. Francione
© 2009 Gary L. Francione