I have already outlined the series of crises I am currently commenting on in my blog. The pacing of their unfolding is slow because of my many commitments, but I remind my readers that some of the finest things require time: wine (not that I drink), well-laid plans, and maturity to take a few examples. Crisis #5 was about a failure in critical theory. The aspect of critical theory mentioned in the original entry for September 21, 2008, Item 5., is about how current animal ethics theories fail to launch effective objections against other theories. These objections tend to beg the question, jump to conclusions, etc. I will soon use the writing of Tom Regan as an example in this respect. However, there is another dimension to critical theory that 5. neglected. Many animal rights theorists fail to reckon with criticisms of their own views. I will edit that entry from last September accordingly to include this other aspect.
My example for this part will be the animal rights theory of Professor Gary L. Francione, which I promised earlier in the blog I would discuss anyway. It makes sense since I have already engaged with a whole other aspect of his theory, his stance on acceptable animal legislation (not that he seems to advocate a legislative approach at this time, as noted earlier).
I will feature a special preview (in draft) from my own forthcoming animal rights ethics book. Note that I do not yet include material from Francione's latest book, a collection of essays entitled Animals as Persons, but since it features no alteration in his basic theory, there is no hurry on that score. I have found so many flaws in Francione's writing, detailed in this blog and in my journal article, "Animal Rights Law," that I am not eager to thoroughly read and perhaps respond in writing to his new book. The track record suggests that it would just be another laborious exercise in having to face logically flawed, tediously repetitive, and spottily organized material. Other projects seem more appealing at present.