There is currently a kind of massive conflict (I shy away from calling it a war due to the attendant gross connotations) between the animal rights futilitarians on the one hand, and animal rights pragmatists on the other. (Note: In long form we would say "animal rights futilitarians" rather than just "futilitarians," since, as I found out, I did not invent the term; "futilitarian" is used mainly in end-of-life debates about the futility of resuscitating people who have life signs and little more.) I say without controversy that the pragmatists are already winning, as they have been since the dawn of futilitarianism as expressed by Gary Francione (see previous blog entries for more context, although there have long been people of like-minded thinking and sentiment). My essay, “Animal Rights Pragmatism,” will help us win more, I hope, since there is otherwise a vacuum for theories that can be used to justify animal rights pragmatism. However, it is not enough that the futilitarians are already marginalized (for good reasons does their philosophy not sit well, intuitively, with most animal rightists). Their number and cause—that of the futilitarians—must be reduced further to the maximum possible extent so that animal well-being and animal rights can be promoted to the maximum possible extent. Let newbies to the debate become pragmatists rather than futilitarians. Let old-time futilitarians change their minds. And let an overwhelming animal movement push hard, though not obnoxiously, to win more and more respect for animals’ interests over time. Being in the majority on an issue is no cause for complacency, especially when so much is at stake. Progress for animals, and what is related, being able to cooperate with animal protectionists more broadly, are all hinging on the progressive outcomes of this massive conflict, so let’s not let the animals down. It is not realistic to expect to convert die-hard futilitarians who will not listen to reason, anymore than it is reasonable to expect conversions with speciesists who are so hidebound, but at least the damage they do to others and the animal protection movement in general can be minimized, and a much more positive and hopeful vision can be actively promoted. The futilitarians cannot rightly be dismissed as “losers,” but need to be taken seriously as a threat to what is good and true, although the good intentions behind their misguided philosophy needs to be honoured as well. Lamentably, the real losers are the animals, who stand to lose further due to futilitarian activism. But as animal rights lawyer, Lesli Bisgould, said of the animal rights movement in general, in a talk some years back: “We’re going to lose, and lose, and lose again. And then we’re going to win.” Ultimately, this is about winning for animals, not winning for “us” as some kind of shared ego trip. So much loss for animals must be grieved continually, but let us not simply grieve the positive potential for them that may be lost through unwise maneuvering. We have reason to be active about what the futilitarians are trying to do specifically in promoting their brand of futility, while sabotaging really possible gains for animals. At the same time, their vegan animal rights activism is still in many ways is to be celebrated. We also have reason to despise futilitarian tactics, such as their dismissing of the pragmatists as not really “abolitionists.” No matter, the dominant position I believe will prevail ever more and more as truth will triumph in the end, and people will literally opt for what is better—or at least many will. Animal rights pragmatists of the world unite!!!
FURTHER READING
A Selection of Related Articles
Sztybel, David. "Animal Rights Law: Fundamentalism versus Pragmatism". Journal for Critical Animal Studies 5 (1) (2007): 1-37.
Short version of "Animal Rights Law".
Sztybel, David. "Incrementalist Animal Law: Welcome to the Real World".
Sztybel, David. "Sztybelian Pragmatism versus Francionist Pseudo-Pragmatism".
A Selection of Related Blog Entries
Francione's Three Feeble Critiques of My Views
Francione Totally Misinterprets Singer
Francione's Animal Rights Theory
Francione on Unnecessary Suffering
Sztybel versus Francione on Animals' Property Status
Playing into the Hands of Animal Exploiters
FURTHER READING ON ANIMAL RIGHTS INCREMENTALISM
A Selection of Related Articles
Sztybel, David. "Animal Rights Law: Fundamentalism versus Pragmatism". Journal for Critical Animal Studies 5 (1) (2007): 1-37.
Short version of "Animal Rights Law".
Sztybel, David. "Incrementalist Animal Law: Welcome to the Real World".
Sztybel, David. "Sztybelian Pragmatism versus Francionist Pseudo-Pragmatism".
A Selection of Related Blog Entries
Anti-Cruelty Laws and Non-Violent Approximation
Use Not Treatment: Francione’s Cracked Nutshell
Francione Flees Debate with Me Again, Runs into the “Animal Jury”
The False Dilemma: Veganizing versus Legalizing
Veganism as a Baseline for Animal Rights: Two Different Senses
Francione's Three Feeble Critiques of My Views
Startling Decline in Meat Consumption Proves Francionists Are Wrong Once Again!
The Greatness of the Great Ape Project under Attack!
Francione Totally Misinterprets Singer
Francione's Animal Rights Theory
Francione on Unnecessary Suffering
Sztybel versus Francione on Animals' Property Status
Note: this blog originally had the sentence: "The futilitarians cannot simply be dismissed as “losers,” but need to be taken seriously as a threat to what is good and true, although the good intentions behind their misguided philosophy needs to be honoured as well." Professor Roger Yates, on AR Zone, took offence to this statement as an insult. He took it to mean I was calling Francionists "losers." What I meant was, in keeping with what I have maintained all along against the practice of insults (which I prove on AR Zone Yates eagerly engages in), that we should go beyond the mere level of insults which I have always despised. Yates even persisted with his interpretation in spite of my clarification to the contrary. It made his intention clear not as someone interested in establishing truth so much as tar-and-feathering. I apologize to anyone who was offended my reading this remark as an insult.
ReplyDelete