New Series on Animal Ethics

Believe it or not, I have said all I want to for now concerning the animal rights pragmatism versus fundamentalism debate (on whether animal "welfare" laws are permissible, or even important, for the animal rights movement). I have written a lot about Francione's ideas on this score since he has a lot to say about the topic. I think this might have been the most urgent topic to discuss for the animal rights movement, since the outcome of the debate may determine what actions animal rights activists might take. There are some Francione followers who read my essay, "Animal Rights Law," and switched over to following the lead of my ideas on animal pragmatism, and they also desire to promote my blog which contains important additional insights not found in the essay just noted. I am pleased that I ended that series with a meditation on what is positive in Francione's approach, in keeping with my orientation towards being balanced and strictly issues-oriented concerning what he has to say.

Many other questions of animal ethics tend to be more academic. They are very important, but they are most often not apt to alter the behaviour of animal rights activists. However, theory is still vital for settling practical questions. In "The Rights of Animal Persons," I note how past theories of animal rights do not logically entail antivivisection. My own theory, I argue, does, and that is significant. I will comment in more detail in the Animal Ethics series how past theories do not logically rule out vivisection, since there are many different aspects of this problem.

While some people may be won over by reading philosophical arguments, it is not clear to me how large a percentage of society this amounts to. We should not underestimate in this respect though. We can list considerations which should cause us to conclude that so-called "animal ethics" matters a great deal:

1. Whether philosophizing should take place is in many ways independent of how often it happens to occur in the world at this time. That something is uncommon does not imply that it is without value. People ought to cultivate philosophy that they may choose more wisely, and hopefully not be dogmatic in what they believe but rather justified. That is not easy to do, but it is essential to being accountable. Perhaps one far-flung day adults who are unable to fully reason about their ethical principles will not be regarded as fully mature. That cannot be the case today, however, since supposedly the best theories on offer cannot thoroughly be rationally defended, in my view.
   
2. I myself have convinced people using arguments in favour of animal rights.
   
3. Testing one's view for rational adequacy helps one to be accountable to oneself, to either shore up one's beliefs or indicate an area of thought that needs to be developed. The process of reasoning could well even cause one to modify one's stance, either to a greater or lesser degree.
   
4. People read books on the subject to intelligently decide their stance on such matters
   
5. University students take courses studying such material
   
6. The leaders of society, politicians, lawmakers, lawyers and the judiciary, sometimes look to academic theories to ground their approaches, and then the practical reflection of what they believe may emerge in the rest of society
   
7. As society makes progress in the area of animal suffering-reduction, the next phase of progress will have to be more philosophical; there will be no more atrocity images to show since the blatant cruelties will have been taken care of and we will be left with forms of animal slavery that need to be debated on more philosophical grounds
   
8. Animal ethics are already debated to some extent in academics
   
9. I predict that if all goes well, ethics education will one day find itself into mandatory schooling for everyone in society; in both of the latter two contexts, one real and the other still only imaginary, winning arguments are priceless.
   

Winning arguments, ultimately, is what I aim to achieve. Whether I attain that in any given case is up to each person to decide for himself/herself.

My series on animal ethics will examine animal rights theories, and also theories that compete with animal rights. Believe it or not, I have not yet commented on Francione's animal rights theory (with the exception of his views on "unnecessary suffering"). I have only addressed his arguments on animal activism. However, we have had an abundance of Francione lately so I will turn now to other animal theorists, such as Tom Regan, Evelyn B. Pluhar (as her name appears on her important book; her surname is now Pluhar-Adams), Paola Cavalieri, Julian Franklin, Bernard Rollin, Steve Sapontzis, Mark Rowlands, Mark Berstein, and others. Eventually, I will get to Francione's own theory of animal rights. All in good time. I will illuminate my perception that animal rights theory is in a state of crisis. I have already argued this in "The Rights of Animal Persons" in a manner that many people have found to be right and even refreshing. There I argue that astonishingly enough, current theories of animal rights do not even logically entail rights in any strong form. However, while the article contains other, more specific criticisms of the theories of animal liberation, it could by no means be comprehensive. I will highlight what in other theories seems to me right or positive, while also criticizing in a way that recognizes problems. I will not be able to vindicate what I regard as right though without my own theory of morality, called "best caring ethics." (BCE) This is introduced in my published article (accessible on this website) called "The Rights of Animal Persons," and I will make some reference to that essay. The forthcoming series of blog entries will highlight why I think we need a book defending BCE at a length that permits much more depth and thoroughness. My book is on the way but still needs time before it greets the public.

Negativism in Francione, and Avoiding Negativism towards Francione

I find that much of what Francione suggests or advocates is strikingly negative in character or orientation. Consider:

1. Francione at times in his Introduction to Animal Rights argues in favor of one right for animals—not to be considered property (Francione 2000, xxxiv). At times he says, more consistently, that it is the basis of all other animal rights. (Ibid., xxviii) This is at base a right to something negative rather than expressing a positive vision. It therefore leaves anything positive to the dice of fate.
   
2. Francione tries to negate animal rights pragmatism as “new welfarism,” denying that such pragmatists are genuine animal rights abolitionists, although we have seen that he himself hypocritically buys into speciesist “proto-rights” outcomes
   
3. He negatively construes the majority of the public as being like the sadistic psychopath Jeffrey Dahmer since they eat meat, and obscenely portrays PETA supporters as “petaphiles”
   
4. He is immovable in his pessimism that “welfarist” laws only allows animals to be exploited more profitably, even after this idea is utterly disproven
   
5. He is sweepingly negative in his assessment of progress that has been won for animals thus far
   
6. He seeks to negate animal rights in the form of garbaging his former advocacy of the Great Ape Project
   
7. He only views, say, lacto-ovo vegetarians negatively, rather than having anything positive to say about what they accomplish
   

Of negativism what good will come? This is not to say that some things should not be negated though. I have tried to refute erroneous statements and illogical arguments in Francione’s work.

Sometimes advocates of Francione are biased in being mesmerized by certain positive aspects of his ideas, while conveniently ignoring many dire considerations associated with what he claims. Yet we must also avoid a biased account of Francione, or one that is unduly negative. I would like to conclude, therefore, with a recognition of what is positive in Francione’s professions:

1. He advocates veganism
   
2. He is assertive about animal rights, unlike some believers in that ideal
   
3. He does not wish to see justice compromised by commercialism, as it so often is in human affairs too
   
4. He tries to promote a rational vision of equality in the form of what he calls “the principle of equal consideration”
   
5. He recognizes that his “proto-rights” proposals are not perfect but instead “tries to approximate an idea in a sensible way”
   
6. He uses arguments to try to deflate speciesism
   
7. He tries to find the most efficient way of promoting animal rights that is most consistent with his perception of ethics
   
8. He strives to avoid outcomes that will conduce towards complacency and increased animal consumption
   
9. He has pioneered in the field of animal law
   
10. He contributes much education through his scholarship, informal writing, university teaching, talks for the public, and internet activism
    
11. He acknowledges that some attempts to promote animal welfare are fine, such as helping individual animals, and in general agrees that it is wise to avoid “unnecessary suffering” in a demanding, abolitionist construal of these terms
    
12. He tries to put forward an original theory of animal rights and animal law
    

Surely there is much that I have omitted regarding both his negativism and positive contributions. Certainly this is not intended as an attempt to weigh pros and cons of subscribing to his approach. Much of what is positive is just his efforts to realize animal rights with integrity. I have refuted that he is most effective in vegan advocacy, negating complacency and animal consumption, putting forward coherent theory, and a great deal more. However, intentions and efforts matter. For all their possible folly, they remain partial indications of character.

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.

go there

Short version of "Animal Rights Law".

go there

Sztybel, David. "Incrementalist Animal Law: Welcome to the Real World".

go there

Sztybel, David. "Sztybelian Pragmatism versus Francionist Pseudo-Pragmatism".

go there

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

My Appearance on AR Zone

D-Day for Francionists

Sztybel versus Francione on Animals' Property Status

The Red Carpet

Playing into the Hands of Animal Exploiters

The Abolitionist ApproachES

Francione's Mighty Boomerang

Dr. David Sztybel Home Page

Do-Nothingism Triumphant? [note: this post outdated and has been negated; please see comment below]

We have seen that although Francione claims one can reasonably abstain from advocating any laws at this stage in history, he does in his book Rain without Thunder accept legislative proposals that he believes amount to “proto-rights.” I outline Francione’s version of proto-rights in my article, “Animal Rights Law.” It includes, to take his most original example, respecting an entire animal interest (e.g., liberty of movement). Francione seems to advocate not bothering with legal reforms at this stage more recently. It is truly astonishing for any social activist to advocate doing nothing on the legislative front to improve conditions. The purpose of this blog entry is to assess which is more logically compatible with his futilitarian approach: advocating proto-rights or doing nothing on the legislative front? I think do-nothingism best fits his unfitting program, for several reasons:

1. He himself seems to advocate doing nothing legislatively, claiming that “vegan education” is the best use of activist time, although I have argued that unique and important gains can be had through legislative reform in my above-mentioned essay. Vegan education converts certain people one at a time and that is invaluable. Laws however may well affect billions
   of animals in dramatically suffering-relieving ways at times. That is hardly to be blown off as easily as Francione would like.
   
2. Proto-rights amount to nothing in the end anyway, as it is ludicrous to expect a speciesist society’s government, let alone animal industry, to shoulder the cost of 100% protection of any animal interests. So doing nothing saves the trouble in arriving at nothing anyway on the more activist version of the futilitarian legislative approach.
   
3. Francione, in the above-mentioned book, laments that animal rights is not reflected in the animal rights movement. However, his own proto-rights proposals are not only “welfarist,” as I argued in an earlier entry, but they violate animal rights and embody speciesism. Protecting one animal interest while leaving others neglected violates animal rights and allows speciesist treatment in the interests that are violated or disregarded. Joan Dunayer’s all-or-nothing animal rights legislative approach is wholly more consistent in this respect, or is consistent with advocating animal rights per se. However, it is also futilitarian, as I’ve discussed earlier, since if you expect everything you often get nothing.
   
4. In terms of effectiveness, too, do-nothingism is more consistent with what Francione professes since he insists that so long as animals are property, there cannot be any legal relations between owners and property, and therefore animal interests will not be taken seriously in animal “welfare” legislation. However, if Francione believes this, it is profoundly inconsistent for him to seriously entertain his proto-rights proposals. For they too seem to suppose legal relations between owners and their property.
   
5. Francione objects that “welfarist” laws will create complacency that animals are well-treated, thus hampering further progress in animal law, but the same reasoning applies to his proto-rights.
   
6. Francione argues that so long as animals are property, if they have no market value, then they have no value at all. However, this would be true of animals’ inherent value which he claims “proto-rights” would in part protect.
   
7. Francione notes how it is impossible that a pen should have rights against its owner since it is property; however, the same argument would apply to having proto-rights against the owner.
   
8. Francione claims that “welfarist” laws are negated too because there is a presumption that animal owners look after their animals. If this blocks “welfarist” laws it would do the same with proto-rights. Indeed, if it is perceived that owners look after their animals, only small changes at most would be allowed for, not the sweeping changes that Francione recommends.
   
9. Francione notes that animal “welfare” laws are not adjudicated in the animals' favor, penalties are minor, judgements not enforced, anti-cruelty laws often require the virtual impossibility of proving intent, and many species of animals are exempt from lawful protection. All of these factors, meant to discourage “welfarist” reform attempts, should even more discourage the much more difficult project of proto-rights.
   

Francione discourages the possible and beneficial to be found in animal rights pragmatism, but offers a “ray of hope” in the form of impossible proto-rights proposals (since again speciesist society structurally cannot fund 100% protection of any animal interests).

If it is structurally impossible for “welfarist” laws to succeed in a society in which animals are regarded as property then it is even more impossible for his proto-rights to succeed since they are far more demanding forms of “welfarist” laws (although Francione would not accept that label; see my blog entry for June 1/08). His negativism about “welfarism” boomerangs back on his positively presenting his proto-rights proposals in ways that he does not acknowledge, or perhaps is not even aware of.

Francione’s futilitarianism is indeed futile. His pessimism about animal “welfarism” applies with redoubled negativity to his proto-rights ideas. And so, after negating, negating, and negating we are left with a void of nothingness, and the vacuity of do-nothingism on the legislative front, an outcome that the animal industries would salivate over. None of this is true of animal rights pragmatism, however. For I refute Francione’s forecasting of futility in “Animal Rights Law,” along with his claim that animal rights is not to be found in the legislative short-term for animal rights pragmatists (whom he derisively labels “new welfarists”). We can find animal rights in the short-term in seed form, and also as a model to approximate as much as possible. Animal rights are seeded in the short-term since kindness culture in the law conduces towards animal rights in the long-term (see "Animal Rights Law"). I do not see how Francione's approach could logically be conceived as conducing to abolition any day sooner—just the opposite! When I think of "the abolitionist approach" that Francione boasts of on his website, I think what he and his followers would most definitively abolish is taking action any time in the foreseeable future on the legislative front. That is a disaster-recipe for animals in so many ways as I have discussed before. We can promote the closest thing to animal rights, which is the maximum respect for all interests, by demanding as much degrees of protection of interests as is possible in the short-term and on to the long-term. Here I speak of the really possible, not just what we can possibly conceive as an idea. Let us leave nothing to the do-nothingists and instead do something far more constructive in the form of substantive suffering-reduction laws. As Edmund Burke penned in another century, in a way that is no less relevant today: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men [and women - DS] do nothing."

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.

go there

Short version of "Animal Rights Law".

go there

Sztybel, David. "Incrementalist Animal Law: Welcome to the Real World".

go there

Sztybel, David. "Sztybelian Pragmatism versus Francionist Pseudo-Pragmatism".

go there

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

My Appearance on AR Zone

D-Day for Francionists

Sztybel versus Francione on Animals' Property Status

The Red Carpet

Playing into the Hands of Animal Exploiters

The Abolitionist ApproachES

Francione's Mighty Boomerang

Dr. David Sztybel Home Page

Is Animal Rights Fundamentalism "Purist"?

Calling animal rights fundamentalists “purists” actually gives them more credit than they deserve. It implies that they occupy the moral high ground and that they more than anyone else accord with principles of moral rightness or justice. However, this seems to me to be untrue. As shown in “Animal Rights Law,” fundamentalists are very much at variance with trying to secure the best possible for sentient beings at all times, including the legislative near-term (in which, as all agree, practically available options are highly unideal). And their conception of animal rights for the long-term is in no sense more “pure.” Therefore it seems like a mischaracterization to portray animal rights fundamentalists are “the pure ones” and animal rights pragmatists as somehow “impure.” “Pure what…?” is perhaps the salient question. It is also well to recall that Francione's proto-rights are far from pure animal rights, securing, say, only one interest while several are neglected, or accepting the banning of dehorning but not hot-iron branding. Joan Dunayer's philosophy would have a better claim to "purism" than Francione's, since she demands animal rights laws bar nothing. However, again, it would be a mistake to suggest that her disastrous recipe for the legislative short-term is somehow more purely ideal. The purest ideal I know, unsurprisingly, is what is best, and that is precisely what the pragmatists aim for at all times. However, animal rights pragmatism is not "the pure one" either since the best we can achieve is hardly synonymous with pure perfection. Purism seems allied with perfectionism, and that seems to be an irrational prescription for a world which must always be described as radically imperfect, and in which the nature of perfection itself remains safely obscure behind an impenetrable veil of mystery.

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.

go there

Short version of "Animal Rights Law".

go there

Sztybel, David. "Incrementalist Animal Law: Welcome to the Real World".

go there

Sztybel, David. "Sztybelian Pragmatism versus Francionist Pseudo-Pragmatism".

go there

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

My Appearance on AR Zone

D-Day for Francionists

Sztybel versus Francione on Animals' Property Status

The Red Carpet

Playing into the Hands of Animal Exploiters

The Abolitionist ApproachES

Francione's Mighty Boomerang

Dr. David Sztybel Home Page

Francione's Mighty Boomerang

In my studies of Francione's ideology, I have noticed that he often accuses others of that which applies to his own claims in one respect or another. This is called "hypocrisy." Yesterday I collected more than 20 of these together. I call them "boomerangs" since he sends them out as accusing shots at his opponents, whom he mislabels "new welfarists," but they rebound back at him. If one is not careful, a boomerang can come back and knock one upside the head. However, he seems to be unaware of his theoretical predicament. Indeed, logical implications cannot be physically felt, let alone seen, heard, smelled, or tasted unlike physical boomerangs. Thankfully, Francione himself remains safe, however, the same cannot be said for the logical status of his position.

Francione’s Claim: “Welfarist” reforms are futile.

BOOMERANG!-1: His proto-rights recommendations sometimes overlap with “welfarist” proposals, e.g., banning the leg-hold trap. So why is such a proposal “futile” when a “welfarist” supports it, but a potent part of abolitionism when coming from the mouth of Francione?

BOOMERANG!-2: Logically speaking, his proto-rights proposals that protect 100% of animals' interests must be super-futile to pursue if much less stringent "welfarist" proposed laws are futile to seek approval of.

Francione’s Claim: Animal “welfarism” promotes complacency.

BOOMERANG!-1: Since Francione does not advocate any legal changes for animals now this creates complacency with total animal misery on the legislative front.

BOOMERANG!-2: His proto-rights proposals would create even more complacency. For then people would say that it is as though part of animal rights is achieved, with the entire protection of an animal’s interest. People would be much more complacent with something strong like animal rights over a weaker “welfarist” law that is enacted.

Francione’s Claim: Animal “welfarism” laws boost animal consumption.

BOOMERANG!: His proto-rights, if passed into law, would boost consumption even more by implication from his reasoning. That is because they promote more complacency or satisfaction with the state of animal law, as argued above, so fewer consumers would boycott the animal industries.

Francione’s Claim: We should not instrumentalize animals (which I can define as treating sentient beings as though they are merely useful while not respecting their interests).

BOOMERANG!: Francione opposes reforming laws because this will create complacency. The unstated (because embarrassing) logical implication here is that keeping laws so that animals are miserable will reduce complacency, since then people will be upset by all of the cruelty. This way of thinking perversely uses animal misery as a mere means towards reducing complacency.

Francione’s Claim: Many other animal rights advocates are “new welfarists.”

BOOMERANG!: He himself is a kind of animal “welfarist,” as I substantiate in my blog entry for June 1, 2008. And while mixing animal rights and animal “welfare” approaches is not new in general, his kind of “proto-rights” welfarism is indeed a relatively new form of welfarism, ironically enough.

Francione’s Claim: Animal “welfare” laws just mean that animals will be exploited more efficiently and profitably.

BOOMERANG!: Francione recommends abstaining from legal reforms at this stage. This gives animal exploiters total freedom to exploit animals more efficiently, e.g., through factory farming, which saves money by treating animals miserably (less space = less rent money, and crappy food is cheaper, as is lack of veterinary care, poor air quality, leaving animals in filth, no amusements, not letting them move around, etc.).

Francione’s Claim: His abolitionist approach will eliminate the root cause of animal suffering (as though this is unique to his approach).

BOOMERANG!: His opponents, the animal rights pragmatists will not only eliminate that cause too, but will do so sooner since a kinder legal culture is far more conducive to animal rights, as I explain in my journal article, “Animal Rights Law.”

Francione’s Claim: Animal welfarist laws are complicit with speciesism.

BOOMERANG!: He would approve of a law banning dehorning of cattle, which would join a body of speciesist laws. It is also conducive to speciesism in law to refuse to try to ameliorate speciesist harms through legal reform at this stage in history.

Francione’s Claim: We must reject the Great Ape Project since it favours animals who have “similar minds” to humans.

BOOMERANG!: He would save a human over a dog in an emergency, other factors being equal. This is presumably due to the different minds of the two, not their different bodies, although Francione merely states he “intuitively” favours this idea.

Francione’s Claim: We do not accept abolishing child abuse by degrees, as the “welfarists” advocate, so we should not accept this in animal law either.

BOOMERANG!: Francione’s proposals would also abolish exploitation by degrees, e.g., protecting some entire interests but others not at all, or banning dehorning but not necessarily hot iron branding.

Francione’s Claim: “Micro” animal welfare action is acceptable, but “macro” animal welfare practices such as laws must be rejected.

BOOMERANG!: If everyone should pursue “micro” animal welfare practices, as Francione seems to support, that automatically becomes a “macro” phenomenon.

Francione’s Claim: Seeking political “insider status” is counterproductive.

BOOMERANG!: Nothing could produce less benefit for animals than staying outside the legislative process for a long time to come: that guarantees zero productivity in that particular respect.

Francione’s Claim: We should not pursue legislative reforms since animal rightists will not be taken seriously by legislatures.

BOOMERANG!: Francione’s crew is among those taken the least seriously by legislatures since they do not even try for legislative change. By contrast, animal rights advocates such as Martin Balluch of Austria, as I have reported earlier, are taken so seriously that laws are signed into effect banning battery cages, fur farming, vivisection of apes, etc. This is accomplished without hiding long-term aspirations for animal rights.

Francione’s Claim: Animal “welfarism” laws play into the hands of animal exploiters by failing to advocate animal rights.

BOOMERANG!: Advocating that animal rightists abstain from legislative change plays into unmitigated animal exploitation more than any other approach. Or Francione’s accepted converse of proposing only laws that finance 100% protection of animal interests, which would obviously be defeated by speciesist legislatures, would also play into exploiters’ interests since then again no animal law reforms would result, a very happy outcome for animal industrialists.

Francione’s Claim: We cannot sacrifice animals’ interests today in the hope of winning animal rights tomorrow.

BOOMERANG!: He agrees to banning dehorning of cows while hot-iron branding would still be permitted. That manifestly sacrifices the protection of whole interests.

Francione’s Claim: It is “morally schizophrenic” to reject unnecessary suffering of animals while accepting practices that involve needless torment.

BOOMERANG!: Again, banning dehorning but not hot-iron branding accepts unnecessary suffering in a legislative proposal and is therefore “morally schizophrenic.”

Francione’s Claim: Do not support groups that claim that some forms of animal abuse are worse than others.

BOOMERANG!: Presumably his banning of dehorning rests on the presumption that it is worse abuse to have cattle industries which permit dehorning.

Francione’s Claim: Animal rights pragmatism does not focus on vegan education unlike his own approach.

BOOMERANG!: Usually animal rights pragmatism not only focuses on veganism, but does so more effectively since Francione condemns all non-vegans equally, and this negative approach discourages—through self-righteous condemnation—those who might only gradually work their way towards veganism.

Francione’s Claim: "New welfarism" is far from most conducive towards abolishing speciesism in the long-term.

BOOMERANG!: Animal rights fundamentalism, as I have argued, is far from most conducive towards animal rights in the long-term since fundamentalism promotes crueler culture in the legislative realm, and such a culture is obviously less conducive to respect for animal interests than kinder culture.*

Francione’s Claim: Animal rights pragmatism is unethical, since its proposals go contrary to animal rights and anti-speciesism.

BOOMERANG!-1: His own proto-rights proposals are also short of animal rights and anti-speciesism, while, like the pragmatists, claiming to affirm animal rights and anti-speciesism as much as possible.

BOOMERANG!-2: His philosophy goes contrary to promoting what is best for sentient beings in both the short-term and the long-term and on that basis, can be judged to be unethical.

These shots with the boomerang Francione perceives as demolishing the pragmatists' argument. Instead they reflect badly on his own stance (once the full implications are understood) while leaving the contentions of his opponents completely unscathed, as I show in "Animal Rights Law."

Notes

* I would like to thank Ian, who prefers his last name to remain anonymous, for taking the time to write to me and to discern and point out that the way I originally phrased this "boomerang" was not exactly in the logical form of a boomerang. I have corrected this problem thanks to Ian's feedback on Tuesday, August 5, 2008.

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.

go there

Short version of "Animal Rights Law".

go there

Sztybel, David. "Incrementalist Animal Law: Welcome to the Real World".

go there

Sztybel, David. "Sztybelian Pragmatism versus Francionist Pseudo-Pragmatism".

go there

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

My Appearance on AR Zone

D-Day for Francionists

Sztybel versus Francione on Animals' Property Status

The Red Carpet

Playing into the Hands of Animal Exploiters

The Abolitionist ApproachES

Francione's Mighty Boomerang

Dr. David Sztybel Home Page