The Terms "Francionism" and "Francionist" Revisited

A lovely Francionist wrote to me and objected to my use of these terms. The objection was that some professors avoid naming an "-ism" or the like after someone while they are still alive, admonishing that this must not be done until some 50 years after the death of the person figuring into the name. No sources are cited, only assumed convention. An argument given by one prof. is that works cannot be digested until some such time frame, so it is hubris to use such terms until then. Well, I do not doubt that such a convention exists in some minds. But I am not invariably conventional. I only do things when they make sense to me.

As I have clarified in the past, I mean no disrespect by the term and indeed it is a compliment that already, so many people in the world really are Francionists. He has inspired something of a mass following using discourse that so many people find persuasive. That is a truly impressive achievement. I do not buy the "50 years" argument. In the information age, views are assimilated much more quickly than that. You can get a good sense of Francione's views by studying them. I am sure my grasp of them is not perfect, but I am trying, and would appreciate assistance rather than incessant badgering about the problem.

My key counter-argument is this: convention by a large body of people. Peter Singer has repeatedly been called the most influential philosopher of the twentieth century or even all time. Just try net-searching the claim. It is extremely common to have positions or people assessed as "Singerian" or "Singerite." Just try doing a boolean Google search with: "Peter" and "Singer" and "animal" and "singerite" [or "singerian"]. You will get an incredible number of hits. People do not bat an eye, normally, when this occurs even on sometimes conservative sites such as official Catholic ones. The term "Reganite" is also used in reference to Regan if you follow the literature following Tom Regan.

I think this comes up as a bone of contention in Francionist circles because they seize on every possible way of rejecting outside views. They have had trouble, as I have documented, finding things to object to in my incrementalist position on rational grounds. Those who object to my using the term, "Francionism," should start a committee writing to all of the thousands of people who have dared to use terms such as "Singerian" or "Singerite."

Has Singer ever batted an eye over such terms? I seriously doubt it, and I am not going to bother this busy man by e-mailing to ask him, even though we have corresponded fairly extensively in the past. I am also not going to bother myself with this problem unless or until I hear some really convincing new arguments from the "nay" side. I apologize if anyone is offended by my decision or re-decision here. No insult is ever intended and is merely projected onto my behaviour rather than being actually part of the message that I am truly transmitting here. The respect for Francione's wishes argument does not play out since if I respected his wishes I would self-censor, deny that I am an animal rights person and abolitionist, and call a certain body of his thought "THE Abolitionist Approach." Uh-huh.

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

Living Will Article: Top of the Top 10

Frank Rao of BioMedLib informs me that of the top ten academic journal articles on animal experimentation, my essay, "A Living Will for Supporters of Animal Experimentation" is currently the top of the top ten, or #1. This is based on their search engine combing over some 20 million articles on MEDLINE. I'm pleased to hear it. My essay was published in Journal of Applied Philosophy, which has a more than 90% rejection rate for academic submissions.

Animal Rights in Essence: a New Information Sheet

Nonharming has long been a component of my philosophy, as the core of its practical driving force. Jainism, a religion of India that practices ahimsa, or nonharming, was articulating more than five thousand years ago. In 1983—that’s 28 years ago—philosopher Tom Regan had his The Case for Animal Rights published. He articulated “the harm principle” as a key to his views. It actually means avoiding harm and would be better called a nonharming principle. In any case, he was profoundly influenced by the civil rights movement, in which he participated. That was led by Martin Luther King, Jr., who was himself powerfully moved by Mohandas Gandhi. Gandhi himself was indebted to the Jains. Even though Gandhi was a Hindu, he borrowed the Jain principle of ahimsa. Regan was also directly imprinted by Gandhi’s thought. Francione, years later, started talking about ahimsa too in the guise of "non-violence." There is a lot more to ethics than a simple principle of nonharming, as I illuminate in other writings. But the principle is extremely useful to emphasize when pressed with the task to come up with a

sheet

summarizing the core of animal rights. That is useful for activism, and I hope that my one-pager will be used to good effect by fellow activists. Actually, I have something of a history in relation to Jainism. The first animal rights group with which I worked, Canadian Vegans for Animal Rights, which no longer exists, had Bruce Costain as a member. He did a doctorate in Jain ethics at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. He hooked me up with the Jain Youth Group, which had some young adults, and Jains number among my good friends. I wrote the article on “Jainism” for the Encylopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, and revised the article for the second edition recently as well. Jain philosophy of ahimsa has always been part of my animal rights history, then, and I perceive it to be fundamental to animal rights ethics. I think we need to give the Jains credit for radical nonharming too, since Western ethics did not originate or develop such a perspective in any outstanding way. That is starting to change though. My one-pager here hopefully will be relevatnt to animal rights activists, rather than only the audience of scholars. A leaflet to explain and justify animal rights will hopefully be of use in outreach efforts. After all, animal rights activists are trying to educate the public about animal rights, and that is primarily a philosophy, although there are many intersecting subjects on top of that.

Many readers may notice that this sheet says at the bottom that it is written at the level of normative ethics rather than meta-ethics. A normative ethics involves applying a moral principle, in this case being consistent about nonharming which one assumes as appropriate for oneself. We do assume these things in society. Meta-ethics though does not assume that any ethical theory is right or wrong, and critically evaluates different normative conceptions, carefully analyzing key terms. Many animal ethicists really just assume a normative ethic and reject other normative ethics for being incompatible with one’s own. In other words, they are doing normative ethics, showing the implications of their normative ethic, when they need to be doing meta-ethics, or justifying their stance in impartial terms. For example, Regan intuitively assumes “the respect principle” which entails “the harm principle,” and Francione intuits that we should not treat human beings as property. I am known to try to supply a rigorous justification at the meta-ethical level, which admittedly, most people never even think about. This sheet, however, is not concerned with meta-ethical justification. In my forthcoming book on animal rights ethics, I will show how nonharming can be rationally justified, and how competing ethical theories can be objected to successfully. An academic looking at this information sheet could say that I am begging the question, or assuming nonharming even as a norm for oneself, and that one should be consistent in treating others like oneself, both of which need to be justified. That is true, but only relevant if one is exploring at a meta-ethical level, which I do in other writing, not this short piece.

The only original idea in this information sheet, perhaps, is the idea of a license to harm, which I introduced in my academic article, "Can the Treatment of Nonhuman Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust?" I also have allusions to my idea of feeling cognition in stressing that pain feels bad, and to a meta-ethical concern with reasoning in speaking of how an idea of bad corresponds with reality. However, ahimsa, the comparison to mentally disabled humans, the alien landing scenario, are not uncommon ideas in animal ethics. The idea is to provide a common-sense defence of animal rights, and for most people, ahimsa is an unspoken part of their common-sense. My original contributions to animal ethics are to be developed in my forthcoming animal ethics theory book.

Peace be with you.

Thank You for Your Interest

I have learned that my website has had 7010 page views in the last 30 days. Averaged out, that is 84,120 page views in a year. That is most of a tenth of a million. Not bad for a semi-employed school teacher with nothing but a bunch of papers and pamphlets to his name. (OK, so that is something of an understatement.) I desire, most heartily, to thank those who are investigating my work. My dear hope is that it contribute to liberation in some real measure.

List of Achievements in Animal Rights and Animal Welfare

This list was compiled for "Animal Action," my guide to activism on behalf of animals from 2008. Needs updating, but still inspiring. Made list into a separate file as well because not everyone will read a guide to animal activism, but they may be interested in the list regardless. Enjoy!

Shutting Down Francionists and their Ilk at AR Meetings

[Note: this blog entry replicates a page under my General Audience menu on my website.]

I have contributed to the philosophy of incrementalists versus anti-incrementalists (basically, the latter deny we should have anti-cruelty laws on behalf of animals). I have even done an informal history paper, "Incrementalist Animal Law: Welcome to the Read World." Here is a little bit in the "political science" department for this overall debate. I have had experience with anti-incrementalists showing up at animal rights groups, real-life or virtual, and demanding that no one support anti-cruelty laws and the like. I have written already on how this is a bad idea and amounts to cruelty without any real justification. These individuals can disrupt the meetings and AR productivity terribly. So here are some tips on shutting disruption out democratically and politely. The best case scenario is that you shut them down but do not shut them out. That is, you decommission anti-incrementalism in group meetings, activities, and representations, but work with these activists, say, to promote veganism. SO LONG AS these anti-incrementalists do not disrupt the goals of the group.

However, some will not want to work with you and will insist on their anti-incrementalism as regards the group. Okay. Well, Caskie Stinnett once said: "A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you actually look forward to the trip." Hell--or some part of it--for these people is exclusion from any grassroots animal rights groups. These fanatics who will not take "no" for an answer falsely think that they alone defend animal rights. However, the pro-cruelty agitators need to be sent to this "hell," politely, although in truth we should wish only the very best for these zealots as persons. I do not literally mean telling them to go to hell, or being sent to a place of suffering as punishment, and so on. Just being sent to the hell of exclusion from mainstream, local AR groups. And we should not be sorry about it, so long as we are acting on behalf of the animals, not ourselves or the Francionists. We cannot help that this is where they belong. They may have bruised egos from being systematically pre-empted, but believe me, that weighs as less than nothing against the extreme suffering of factory farming that they would have linger on and on. Let them talk endlessly on "The Abolitionist Approach" website. This "hell" is only for anti-incrementalist disruptors, I will re-emphasize. Anti-incrementalists who will serve on other tasks are of course to be welcomed. Otherwise there may be less productivity for the group, and anti-incrementalists would be the target of discrimination by people who dislike them or whatever. That is not morally defensible.

I used the form letter in response to Michael Lanfield telling us on Toronto Pigsave's Facebook page: "we should be striving for...[no] welfarism..." He did not even say, "It is my opinion that..." in typical Francionist style. Trying to dictate to the whole group. Several people in the group, on the Facebook page, said they liked my form letter. We need this to get out there to do the work it is meant to perform.

Here is a document on how to shut them down in 5 minutes flat.

There are form letters you can send to anti-incrementalists either online or in person. Please go to my site in order to access these form letters.

The form letters have a blank for either an animal rights group or one whose mission intersects with animal rights, as so many do or could. One could even use the generic salutation: "Dear anti-incrementalists" if applicable, or even as a pre-emptive move if that is desired. There is more to know than is contained in the above three documents. Individuals who are disruptive may force a democratic vote to ban them from the group’s activities. If the anti-incrementalists are served the letter, and there is a subsequent meeting, and there is a perception that the meeting is “stacked” to favour anti-incrementalists, then forming a separate group, with an incrementalist constitution, may be in order.

I would like to address concerns that may arise that we should have open dialogue and debate about how best to achieve animal rights. I agree. But there is a time and a place for everything. There are plenty of internet forums to discuss these issues, and readings available from both sides. Scholars can address these concerns, and so can conferences for activists and private conversations. The fact is, I do not take kindly to cruelty. I believe that animal rights groups should stand up for animal rights, including the right not to be treated cruelly. If indeed it is the will of the majority of members, then I agree that this discussion should take place in the animal rights group. It may do some good. But otherwise not, and I prefer it if the group actually gets down to its business of helping animals rather than holding this discussion. Indecision about combating cruelty to me is a vice rather than some academic virtue. The aim of moral philosophy is to find out what is morally right and put it into practice, not to be indecisive about everything. I am not a moral skeptic and believe that there are ethical absolutes, and that the other side has been discredited even if they do not perceive it. I do not believe that there are no answers, and we can only scratch our heads in puzzlement over whether to prolong world animal cruelty. The animal rights movement needs, for the most part, to resolve itself on this issue and move forward.

The Francionists, to the extent that they have an effect, will ensure that billions, perhaps even trillions over the long haul, of animals will be tortured more than need be the case. I think we should rule out torture in the human case and no less vigorously in the nonhuman case. Ethical animal rightists should band together to combat these extremely destructive effects on animals. It is not a neutral matter. Any interest in discussion that I have is an activist one, to win converts if possible. I am also interested in the truth, but I have seen Francionists who are indifferent to logical flaws that have been identified in their arguments, and cannot be bothered to address them. I think the truth is there is no genuine excuse for cruelty. I have no objection to these people cooperating on matters of common concern, and they should have full freedom to form their own activist groups. But my democratic vote is that we should be in the business of helping animals in animal rights activist groups, not debating about whether we should be cruel to them. If we concede that we will not tolerate cruelty, then I do not see why a pro-animal activist group should tolerate a pro-cruelty position. It is as simple as that (although obviously the whole debate is much more complex). If they want to help fight cruelty, fine. If they want to promote it then I do not have common cause and would rather they keep their distance, and stay out of the way of anti-cruelty activists with whom they would eagerly interfere.

Take children's rights as an analogous example. Francionists often say that we do not abolish child abuse by degrees, so we must do the same for animals. As my history paper shows, although it is noble to want to abolish all child abuse, the history of law-making in children's rights is all incrementalist, so in effect it was abolished to an extent by degrees in American society as my sample country. Yet child abuse lingers on, including malign neglect on the part of society. Should children's rights groups have had debates about whether they should have supported all of this incrementalist legislation? Should they have listened with great attention to people who wanted to prolong cruelty to children because otherwise people would be too "complacent" to pass full children's rights legislation? No, the objectors had some catching up to do compared to the rest, and should do that largely on their own time. They should literally not be allowed to interfere with true progressivists, keeping in mind that the anti-incrementalists accomplished nothing in the arena of human rights either, as I show in my paper. Anyone doing anything socially significant has to place nay-sayers firmly to one side at some point (and there are ALWAYS nay-sayers), hopefully sooner rather than later in order that productivity be as great as possible.

Those committed to making progress with the right not to be treated cruelly are on a mission. The mission is not interrupted with the inception of an animal rights group but only continued. It does not vary as Francionists come and go. And they will. It is part of a never-ending campaign for practical life purposes. And you are not alone in your mission. It is shared, thankfully, by a community of noble beings. Some will overlap with your mission entirely, some largely, and some with notable differences. Others will not overlap at all even though at an intellectual level, there seems like there should be room for cooperation. Sometimes it gets all too personal and opportunities are wasted. If the latter category of people try to intrude, be arrogant, demanding, or obstructive...well you need to defend the anti-cruelty mission against people who are unwittingly pro-cruelty. The alternative is to be unwittingly pro-cruelty oneself. As Eldridge Cleaver, founding member of the Black Panthers said in 1968, "What we're saying today is that you're either part of the solution, or you're part of the problem."

You will actually be doing the Francionists a favour by being calm and assertive with them. You will save them the waste of time trying a takeover bid of a group that stands firm against cruelty in all forms, including their frequent bullying (see my blog entry on Insults and Illusions ~ November 21, 2007). With all due respect, let's put these people in their place in the world of AR activism. They should be asked to stand aside from those making progress, or not to stand in our way with their discouragement or lack of encouragement of incrementalist, enlightened legislation.

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

Essay for Toronto Pig Save: "Extending Our Circle of Compassion to Pigs"

I have written a paper on pigs for Toronto Pig Save. It is called "Extending Our Circle of Compassion to Pigs." The paper includes some reflections on working at the Cedar Row Sanctuary; a species-appreciation of hogs; debunking of myths about pigs (which ironically apply to pig exploiters); cruelty charges against the hog "farming" industry; an outline of how speciesist harm to pigs cannot be defended; and a suggestion of new ways forward for pigs and other sentient beings. The Toronto Pig Save website has yet officially to launch, but is already replete with very interesting art, literature, and other precious bits.

(Please note that the PDF file is large and takes several seconds to download.)

New Paper on Animal Law: Incrementalism versus Anti-Incrementalism

A few people have commented on the incrementalist nature of laws for blacks, women, and children. I decided to investigate this myself with more thoroughness. This is a history paper, so it is outside my area of expertise which is philosophy. Nevertheless, it has been a neglected area, so I thought I would try to do something anyway, and wait for some real history experts do more rigorous and elaborate work at some later date.

Here is a LINK

The paper tries to accomplish a number of things:

1. Come up with a new terminology for this debate: incrementalism versus anti-incrementalism, with reasons given assessing many choices for terminology
   
2. Showing that most forms of oppression could not possibly be based in an extended form of property status as Professor Gary L. Francione states
   
3. Providing an outline of the history of post-property-status legislation on behalf of African Americans, women, and children, and showing that it is ALL incrementalist legislation
   
4. Commenting on the sheer improbability, if not impossibility, that animal law will be nonincrementalist, unlike laws on behalf of humans;
   
5. Explaining why it is virtually impossible to go beyond incrementalism
   
6. Assessing the value of single-issue campaigns
   
7. Further addressing the complacency problem pegged onto incrementlist approaches
   
8. Outlining some key increments of animal laws that have already come to pass
   
9. The implications of accepting historical incrementalism for anti-cruelty laws...and more!

Bruce Friedrich writes and speaks widely on this topic on behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. He recently blogged in the Huffington Post on this debate, and linked to this essay of mine, calling it essential reading. See his article and the comments. Another commenter favorably referred to my "Animal Rights Law" essay and mentioned the incrementalist nature of progress for women's rights. HuffPo has been called the world's most influential blog site. This reference by Mr. Friedrich has resulted in an all-time high of page views, yesterday, on my website. Enjoy!

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