Comments due by 11:59pm this Sunday (9/8).
In class we have talked together through several views challenging our contemporary treatment of animals, whether as food, for research, entertainment, clothing, etc. We have read Peter Singer, Tom Regan, and James Rachels. We'll be reading others later.
Here I want you to listen to a brief interview with abolitionist Gary Francione. Here is a bio from Francione's website:
"Gary L. Francione is Board of Governors Professor of Law and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law-Newark.
He received his B.A. in philosophy from the University of Rochester,
where he was awarded the Phi Beta Kappa O’Hearn Scholarship that allowed
him to pursue graduate study in philosophy in Great Britain. He
received his M.A. in philosophy and his J.D. from the University of
Virginia. He was Articles Editor of the Virginia Law Review.
After graduation, he clerked for Judge Albert Tate, Jr., United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and for Justice Sandra Day
O’Connor of the United States Supreme Court. He was an associate at
Cravath, Swaine & Moore in New York City before joining the faculty
at the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1984, where he was
tenured in 1987. He joined the Rutgers faculty in 1989."
The link to the podcast is here.
There is a lot to talk about in this interview. Francione offers a number of reasons for supposing that the animal welfare movement (which he credits Peter Singer with inspiring) is fundamentally misguided and answers several questions and responds to several objections to the abolitionist approach. Among other things, he discusses domesticating animals (the use of animals as pets), free range products, the economic factors behind the animal industry, the (alleged) distinction between moral justification and excuse, the unintended harms to animals in a vegan diet, eating roadkill, and explanations for why more people aren't abolitionists (opting instead for animal welfarism).
What did you find plausible about Francione's views? Were his arguments compelling? Why or why not? I presume that, for many of you, he is challenging your everyday practices and habits. He is arguing that you are routinely doing something immoral. How do you respond?
As always, push each other and challenge each other. Learn from each other. Demand reasons. Make arguments. And do so in a way that is gracious, charitable, and humble.
I find plausible that animals have are aware of the present and they car about continuing life meaning they should not get exploited.He continued to say that there should be no reason to kill 56 billion animals per year for food when it is not an "us or them" situation. This is actually pretty valid because there are people that consume animal flesh simply because they enjoy it. There is no real need for doing this and protein can be found other ways. I fall under the category that I eat meat because I like the taste of it and that is how I was raised. However, it does not make sense why I do this other than it is personal preference.
ReplyDeleteAlso, he believes that animals have perceptual awareness that should be enough to prevent them from wrongful suffering or exploitation. This argument makes sense because most animals know the environment around them and know what pain is. However, I reject this claim because, without animals, we would lose our main source of research and society would never condone the use of humans in such experiments. If medical research is to continue without animals, then there needs to be other alternative test subjects recognized.
Sorry, I noticed that there were a few typos in that last comment. I just wanted to add one idea to my last post:
ReplyDeleteThere was a point that was given that he was posed with the question about phasing out the use of animals and he replied that it would be like giving child molesters the right to a controlled molestation of children. Wow, that was a huge stretch. These two scenarios are not in any way related. I have no idea why he would bring that up because child molestation is already a crime and using animals is not. Furthermore, the nature of both is not related since one is a horrid sexual assault and the other is accepted in society already. I would like to hear what other people think about that comment.
I love the way this guy has an answer for everything he believes in. I feel like this guy explains things more the way that I would try. I think he takes it to the extreme in some cases. like his dogs for example, they were put here on earth to be carnivorous. the teeth, body figures and the way they hunt for food is all the way a predator is designed. the fact that he wouldn't want anymore dogs living on the planet is a little too far also. I do believe he is very right for his explanation on why he doesn't want them on the planet and I simply believe that problem can be solved with fixing your animals and keeping them inside so we don't have strays. we let things get out of hand with an over population and we find ourselves where animals are in the hands of the wrong people being misused. animals should not just be given away for a cheap price or even for free. they deserve to be taken by someone with the money who can buy them for a descent price so that way there is a better chance of them getting taken care of properly. I feel there are people out there that treat their animals immoral but at the same time I feel like he thinks everyone is treating them immoral no matter how well they are treating their animals. he would probably argue that it is immoral to keep a dog inside at night because it is not something that would happen naturally in the wild if they were never domesticated. He has a lot of great points in what he is saying but I still believe a lot of his things are taken too far. animals just need to be respected more and not used for unnecessary uses.
ReplyDeleteChelsea M.
Francione brings up a couple points that I liked. One of the things is where he says that the decisions we make on meat, like what we have for dinner and such, he points out that it is in fact a decision, not compulsion. So if we took the matter seriously on harming animals, since 6.6 billion animals are killed per year, then we could all seriously go vegan because its not a necessity. I'm quite sure that if everyone believed in that problem enough then sure, we could go vegan. But then we would have all those animals and what would we have to do with them. A lot of those animals we kill for our food are raised for that reason anyway so I don't think there's a point to even think about going vegan, and who doesn't like their meat anyway.
ReplyDeleteAnother point that he made was that people think that animals who suffer like we do, matter morally. To me it doesn't matter. Just because the animal isn't showing it's pain doesn't mean it's not there.
Cristin S.
Gary Francione brings up very many points on what his view is on how everyone should eat and treat animals. One of theses points is that he thinks that humane treatment is impossible or what he says "is a fantasy." I don't see how that is true we as hamans treat animals to the great treatment we can give them, just because we eat meat doesn't mean that we are treating animals inhumanely, there are animals in this world that are breed to just be meat animals.
ReplyDeleteAnother point that he brings up is that he wants everyone to go vegan. no matter what the case is. Well I just don't agree with him at all here, for he has no power over everyone and he seems to be wanting the whole world to change just because he says so. I don't think that would go well with many people. But he also says in this that he doesn't want anything to be used for research, then how are we suppose to find treatment and cure diseases and other things like that. I just really don't agree with his reasoning with many thing for how he thinks the world should be.
Sara Hannon
I disagree with Francione’s views and do not find his views plausible. He disagrees with all animal use including domesticated animals (in which he has pets of his own). I believe animals are necessary. For example, if it is our duty to stop animal suffering we should heal them when they are sick and in pain. However, in order to train a veterinarian, you have to use animals to practice on in order for the veterinarian to know how to do procedures. One cannot just read about how to do a procedure and then be able to preform it perfectly they need to practice. Although, Francione would view this as causing pain to the animals that are used for practice, however, if they aren’t used to practice on, many animals will suffer because no one could help them. Thus, animal use is necessary in this and many more situations, and taking animals out of human life is not plausible or moral.
ReplyDeleteFrancione also mentioned that in situations such as being stranded in the desert that one can do something that is the right thing, such as eating an animal in order to survive, even if it is morally wrong. However, the ‘right’ thing to do is morally correct thing to do and I believe it is the wrong thing to do if it is morally incorrect, the two go hand in hand. Therefore, if Francione believes that eating an animal can be the right thing to do in some circumstances, then it would be morally correct. Thus, I believe that Francione will always say it is immoral to eat an animal, however I don’t believe he has valid reasoning for saying so.
Mollie Backode
I don't agree with him when he talks about animals as pets. Yes, they allow us to keep animals as pets but it's not like the animals are being forced to stay, they obviously like the way they are being treated otherwise you think they would be out on the street in a heartbeat. I think were put down here for us to eat we just need to learn how to to them and slaughter them properly and in a more humane matter. It's not wrong to eat animals. It is very wrong to test on them and put them through the torture like he was speaking of when he brought up the rats. I feel like we need animals for food and company and animals need us as well for not only companionship but for when they are sick or hurt, when they're out on the street, they need a place to stay and live as well. basically we just need to learn how to treat animals more humanely and I think people would stop making such a big deal about animal rights as they do now.
ReplyDeleteGary Francione, being an abolitionist, believes that humane treatment of animals is an impossible "fantasy". I see his point in this. All people have differing views on what is considered "humane". There will never be one consensus on what actions are "humane", so there will always be treatments of animals that go on that are not "humane".
ReplyDeleteI also agree with his comment that "life and death decisions are made by out palate pleasure and fashion sense". I do not think that people realize that their choice in food and fashion, and even entertainment, contains life and death ultimatums for animals.
A question I would ask Francione is why he has dogs for pets when he clearly hates domestication and the use of animals.
I do not agree with his stance that it is okay to have his dogs be vegan. Dogs have evolved to be carnivores. They should not be made to eat a human diet, which goes against what they are supposed to digest. Changing an animals natural diet intervenes too much in that animals life, which I thought Francione was against. Using his dogs diet to further his abolitionist goals is counter productive.
--Monica T
Gary Francione is very passionate about what he believes in. While listening to this interview I felt like he was pushing his views on me the entire time. He had an answer for ever question asked and there was no room for disagreeing.
ReplyDeleteI do not understand why he thinks that animals should not be used as pets, but then has dogs of his own. Is that not a contradiction? Also if he is an animal activist, you would think that he would want animals to have what is best for them, right? Francione has forced his dogs to be vegans. Carnivores, like dogs, are not meant to have plant based diets, their digestive tracts are unable to successfully and properly digest forage. This in itself is inhumane.
-Kimber C.
I think this podcast was kind of hypocritical. Francione did have a point of that animals are able to feel pain and should not be tortured because of this fact, but I also think that a lot of his points are unreasonable and go against nature itself, even though Francione was trying to say the nature should be the way it was originally supposed to be.
ReplyDeleteOne of my biggest problems with taking Francione's argument seriously was when he was saying his views on domestication. I agree with Monica T. that if he is such a big proponent of not having pets and not breeding animals to have pets and domesticating them, then why does he have 4 dogs? This I feel like brings down his argument and makes me not take him seriously if he can not go along with his own beliefs. Since he feels so strongly about the subject it just seemed wrong.
Then Francione talked about not having carnivores animals eat meat, because its morally wrong. This I think again is unrealistic request. It is saying that he wants animals to go against their natural instincts. I think doing something like that is morally wrong, because you are making an animal change its natural instincts or in other words controlling there living. This is why I can not take what Francione says seriously.
--Alyssa Toupin
I have varying feelings about Fracione's views.I will first state the ideas of Francione's that I agree with, then those that I disagreed with.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I do agree that we humans cannot completely justify animal use. A lot of animal use does end in unnecessary suffering, not all the time, but very frequently. I also agree that you cannot say that those animals that have shown a higher capacity for pain are more valuable and should be thought of as higher than those who do not have a high capacity for pain. One great point that I definitely agree with is that cognizance should not matter when arguing about animal use. While it does have moral significance, it should not have pull when deciding that animals can be used just because they do not have the same brain activety as we humans do. The last point that he made was how, while animal reforms may seem like they help the animals, they are really mainly just an economical benefit. Just because the animals are free range animals, does not make their use any more justifiable.
One of the points that I was not entirely convinced on was his opinion of domesticated animals, or pets. He seemed to negate his theory of not having animals as pets because its a 'sad existence, by then stating that he, himself, owns four dogs as pets. I also did not think that using child molestation in several examples was a good choice. The last point he makes about how in certain cases it may be 'right' to kill/eat an animal, does not make it morally correct. That confuses me, because I do not understand his use of it being 'right'. Right, as in it keeps us alive? I was just a tad confused on that theory.
Overall, while I did agree with a lot of his points, I find him to be a little too radical for my taste.
I found this podcast very hard to sit through. I found him very hypocritical, and that decreases his reliability and validity. He should not have argued that the domestication of animals is so wrong. He made himself out to be a hypocrite, one can not say doing something is so wrong like having a pet while having 4 dogs. He seemed to argue that there is no proper and moral way to have a pet, so in theory nothing he does to provide for his dogs or do to care for them is moral. I was very confused by his arguments on eating meat as well. I immediately sensed his strong dislike of eating meat with how often he mentioned everyone becoming vegan. What confused me was his statement on when it would be okay to eat meat. If it is so morally wrong to eat meat, there should be no circumstances in which it would be okay to do so. I can see where he gets these views though. Not all pet owners treat their pets as well as they should be taken care of, but not all pet owners abused their animals. I do not agree with the idea that everyone should become vegan. I may be a speciesist, but I do like the taste of meat. In the U.S. we eat animals raised for the purpose of being food, these animals would be eaten outside of captivity as well. I do not think one person should tell an entire population that what humans have been doing since almost their arrival on earth is wrong. I understand where his strong points come from but I don't agree with how radical he is about presenting them.
ReplyDelete--Vikki Burt
Francione is very different in his arguments to say the least. He starts ouut saying that instead of arguing if animals have rights, the biggest issue that needs fixing is just how humanely we treat all animals. He says we need to significantly improve our humane treatments.
ReplyDeleteThe next issue if had with his views is the same thing everyone else is saying. With most of Findlay being Pre-vet, we all think Francione is hypocritical when he states that he is completely against domestication but yet has four dogs. He does not realize that history domesticated animals to helo them survive. Dogs were trained and domesticated to help hunt animals so people could feed their families. They were also used for protection of their families. This simple is explained as the Circle of Life. We rely on animals for life and many animals rely on humans for life. If we were to release a lot of dogs back into the wild they would not survive very long because they lack the ability to hunt for food for themselves.
Is it wrong to say domestication of pets is wrong just because they are dependent on us while we are dependent on so many more things?
--Matt P.
Francione held a very good argument. With that being said I feel a lot of the views made in this discussion are extremely impractical. At one point he suggests that everyone should become vegan but then less than 5 minutes later he says how we as a people could never remove factory farming. If he doesn't believe we can eliminate factory farms how in the world does he suggest we all go completely vegan? I think personally his views are just so drastic and unrealistic he must understand that they are not possible. At one point he suggested that he trys to never walk on the grass in fear of killing insects. but how does he think the grass was removed from where he was walking? what about new housing that must be built. I feel most of the abolition community is more concerned for the welfare of the animals and less concerned with our own welfare as a race. The last point in this conversation that really stuck out to me was how he said domestication was so terrible but then in the same sentence said he had five pet dogs. If this does not scream hypocrite I don't know what does. My biggest problem with this is if he gets caught on something small like this who is to say he is not hypocritical about some of his other stances. This in itself makes me disregard everything else he has said because there is no personal relevance being that he doesn't even live by his own ideas.
ReplyDelete-Josh P.
Francione brings up many good arguments through out his interview. When he was talking about people with altimeters, he said that they may not have a past or future but they have a interest to continue to live. This was a strong argument because animals have a interest to continue to live, and although they maybe different, what makes its okay for us to take their lives for out food? I disagree about the statements he makes about owning a pet. It does cost money to protect their interest but most people treat them as if they where family. Most people realize the responsibility of keeping a pet and take it head on. When he says that if we treated a human like we treated our pets, then we would consider it torture. He also says that domestication is becoming a problem. Most pets are raised to be a "pet". Although pets cant talk to us we are still able to see some types of emotion that comes from them and care about them as a being.
ReplyDelete-Cameron K
I really don't agree all with Francione because technically there is a humane way in treating animals. We provide the animals with food, water and shelter so we are humanely treating animals. If the entire world goes vegan there will be an over population of animals. Also if everyone goes vegan there will not be enough vegetation on Earth to feed the entire world and animals. Therefore we will end up starving and the animals will begin dieing. He really does make a good point but I think in the long run becoming a vegan will not work.
ReplyDelete~Tara Jones~
I do not agree with Francione because we all should treat animals humanely, with an exception of killing them to eat. Honestly most people treat there dog just as well as there child. We take care of our pets as if they are almost humans. All though they can't talk we can still see emotion out of them. I understand his points but if we did not kill animals for food, the animals would be over populated and we would have to feed them the crops that now is all we have to eat and we will run out of food every year. My personally opinion is that we continue living the way we do. Animals do have rights and they are protected. People get prosecuted for animal abuse just like people get prosecuted for child abuse. I just don't think we could live without eatting meat due to the fact of over populated and we will not have enough food.
ReplyDeleteDillon Kliesch
I was surprised when i listened to Francione's responses because he was more reasonable then i expected. I thought he made a very good point in talking about how the big animal groups can sometimes get us asking the wrong question. Sometimes I do feel that we just try to ask questions we can find an answer to so we feel better about what we do. However he starts to loose me with everything else. I don't see how it is morally wrong to view an animals as something to use is it is appropriate. I still have yet to see someone give a plausible explanation on how it is possible for all humans to go vegan. This is important because it may not be possible for humans to never use an animal in order to have the race survive, and I don't think there is anything wrong with making sure your species survives.
ReplyDelete--Matt Powers
I think that Francione is far out at one end of the spectrum and holds a lot of internal bias in his thoughts. He believes (based on his practice of owning vegan dogs) that dogs should be vegan. This belief is very far from sane. Canines are found in the Canidae family which are classified as carnivorous and omnivorous mammals. Thus it can be inferred that dogs, relatives of the wolves, are, as in the wild carnivorous. The fact that Francione owns dogs and feeds them a vegan diet costs him his credibility in his argument against consuming meat.
ReplyDelete---Nick D.---
I feel that Francione was extremely hypocritical and very unrealistic. Having him saying that animals (carnivores) shouldn't eat meat as in other animals, but that would be unnatural for the carnivores; hunting other animals is part of their natural instinct. Also Francione talked about how animals shouldn't be domesticated, used for breeding purposes but yet he has dogs himself. Francione wasn't very clear of what point he was trying to get across. The only thing he accomplished in this was being hypocritical.
ReplyDelete--Michelle F.--