Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Update of “Animal Rights Law”—with New Insights

Some will wonder if I have given up the ghost when it comes to discussing both sides of the animal rights fundamentalism versus pragmatism debate. The answer is: no. I have taken a breather of several weeks, but the truth I am confronted with is that the issues continue to be of importance, and it falls to me to address them since there is a dearth of other people doing the same work (see my Nov. 26 entry on one of the very few academic exceptions to this rule, Steve Wise's book review of Rain without Thunder). It is also worth keeping in mind that this debate is about billions upon billions of nonhuman animals, and the real and possible laws which directly affect them, more than it is about human animals, although in general terms, each human also has a dignity as well as duties.

Now my essay, “Animal Rights Law: Fundamentalism versus Pragmatism,” Journal for Critical Animal Studies 5 (1) (2007): 1-37 cannot be revised because it is published in a journal. By contrast, the MIRROR PRODUCTIONS version of “Animal Rights Law,” a popular audience version, can be revised since it is published on this site. I am pleased to report that I have revised and re-edited the MIRROR PRODUCTIONS presentation, and it contains new insights that are not given in the academic article. That is because, well, I did not have them at the time, but blogging has, as one might hope, stimulated new thoughts. However, time is a precious, non-renewable resource, so here is a list of the additional ideas for those who wish to expand their insight with a minimum of fuss:

  1. p. 3, first full paragraph, last two sentences. Regarding the objection that “welfarist” laws are like asking that child abusers soften the blow rather than calling for an end to such abuse. Of course pragmatists also call for an end to such abuse a.s.a.p. and there are other familiar points given, but what is added is the realization that Francione’s own approach is more like softening the blow than abolishing child abuse completely, to use the often-made comparison. To see how this is plainly the case, see passage.
  2. p. 4, first full paragraph. Discussion of “cruel culture” and “kind culture” is amended to say “crueler” and “kinder” culture since we are not talking about absolutes. China has a “crueler culture” regarding animals, not a “cruel culture” in all respects.
  3. p. 4, second full paragraph. I have added a supplement to my argument for the long-term effectiveness of the pragmatist approach: a list of absurd statements one would have to believe, in part or whole, to dispute my model. I wouldn’t want to be someone disagreeing with these statements as the reader will perceive!
  4. p. 5, under list of Francione’s “futility factors,” as it were, I consider the objection that only minor counterexamples can be given for the effectiveness of animal “welfare” legislation. An entire Western nation is no minor counterexample.
  5. p. 7, second full paragraph. The point is made that we cannot meaningfully speak of sacrificing something unless we already have it or at least have access to it.
  6. p. 7, second full paragraph. I point out that if animal “welfarist” laws sacrifice animal interests, then so do Francione’s own proto-rights measures for reasons given.
  7. p. 10, first partial paragraph. A commentary on Francione’s title of his website: “Animal Rights: the Abolitionist Approach,” [emphasis added].
  8. p. 10, first partial paragraph. An indication of the incoherence of the “new” part of Francione’s “new welfarism” concept.
  9. p. 10, reply to objection 5. In response to the objection that we should never ask people to stop short of the ideal, I simply point out that Francione’s proto-rights proposals also do this.

A fundamentally flawed position will continue to manifest more and more problems, by implication, the more closely it is both elaborated and scrutinized.

Have a lovely day!


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

Friday, February 1, 2008

A Public Service: "Motivating Yourself to Study"

I am now switching gears in my blog. For personal reasons, I am going to take a break from critiquing animal rights fundamentalism and the work of Gary Francione for a while. I made an honest mistake with respect to Professor Francione, for which I again sincerely apologize on this occasion, as the mistake caused considerable upset. But now it is getting to be time to move on. I will write on other topics in this blog, after what is soon to come: clearing my desk of futilitarianism commentary.

One piece of writing that I have been meaning to post for some time is called "Motivating Yourself to Study: A Guide for Students." One of the hats I have worn is that of a substitute teacher. I was impressed by many of the teenagers I met, most of whom by far were courteous, fine people. However, I noticed that many of the students seem de-motivated academically, and this concerns me. I think it is a massive phenomenon, certainly in public school, but even to some extent in university, where students often pay their own tuition. They are chronically frustrated, locked into a vicious cycle. I have a lot of empathy for these students, and whereas many parents or teachers are inclined to judge them as "lazy" and verbally whip them to that effect, I would have to guess that many of these students are experiencing some form of psychological blockage. I am not an educational psychologist, but I have had some teacher training and experience counseling and so I offer my guide to people who wish to help themselves, or to help others suffering from this dreadful problem. It might just help turn the corner in someone's life.

I recall I was asked by a family friend many years ago to meet with their son, who was academically demotivated. After a session or two, he really turned around, starting to achieve his potential for academic excellence. Now, whenever I happen to see him, he is happy, well-adjusted and a keen achiever in his own right. I do hope that some people will find this to be helpful. I insert a copy here in my blog, and also will keep a copy on my web page:

Motivating Yourself to Study

A Guide for Students

By David Sztybel, Ph.D.

Back in the day when I was in high school, I suddenly became keen to score finer marks so that I could enter university in good form according to my choices. I succeeded, but along that journey I remember consulting a book on studying (whose identity will pass unnamed). On the topic of motivation to study, it had no separate section, but only a passing comment, which I remember today for its cruelty, lack of imagination and empathy, and unhelpfulness. The comment was that no one can help you with motivation to study, and that if you lack the motivation that’s your fault. Blame implies that people wantonly refuse to study because they are wicked in some way. As a professional scholar, and as a teacher with some sympathy for students who find difficulty studying and would like to apply themselves more than they actually do, I in fact find that often people are blocked in their will to study by various factors. Frequently people are not to blame for succumbing to these considerations, but merely human, or unaware of what is blocking them, or as yet not treating the issues as a serious problem, to be approached in a problem-solving way. Some people indeed do blame themselves, and then give up not least of all for that reason. And still others, including some teachers, may be content to just join in “the blame game.” How destructive! I am not an educational psychologist, but an educator with years of counseling experience, and I can at least hope to offer advice on motivation to study that is more helpful than the “expertly” written study guide that I mentioned—which was of value in other respects, and indeed was an inspiration that helped motivate this article! The author referred to earlier probably had no problem studying and felt superior, and therefore pettily gratified, when surveying those who fell into difficulty.

Perfectionism. This can be a huge demotivator, even with people who on the surface do not seem concerned with excellence. Very often there is an intrinsic motivation to excellence, but it has been crushed or subdued, and yet perfectionism may lurk beneath the surface. Perfection can be grand. The thing about perfectionism is that it is an obsession with perfection in an imperfect world. We cannot rationally expect perfection as a general matter in a world in which so many things go wrong, and in which we find ourselves frankly imperfect. If people expect perfection, they demand perfect conditions for studying (ignoring the need to push a little bit sometimes to get into studying mode), a perfect idea for starting (even though warm-ups are often needed as the mind naturally gets into gear), and perfect performance. If the first two factors are missing, the studying might never begin. If performance seems to falter—and is actually only all too human, since to err is to learn—then the studying may suddenly cease. However, with the surrender of needing perfection this powerful demotivator itself may cease to have any effect, and give way to a healthy enjoyment of laughing at one’s foibles—in a gentle way, preferably. Most people are average, which fact renders totally irrational the idea that everyone should pursue perfection (this insight about averageness is derived from a similar discussion in David Burns’ excellent book, Feeling Good: the New Mood Therapy). If you accept being average as perfectly OK, you may just find a welcome resting place from which you can launch yourself into personal excellence, which is so much better than perfection not least of all because it is a realistic goal. Remember that average performance compared to others is well compatible with personal excellence in one’s own efforts.

Comparing oneself to others. There will always be others who perform better or worse than oneself, and often there is a mix of better and worse. Much of the contemporary economy is hyper-competitive and this only encourages such comparisons. However these comparisons are destructive. If someone performs better this can lead to feeling deflated, feeling that “gap” in a de-motivating way, and if someone does worse this can lead to complacency and gloating which also detracts from getting “real” things done. Such thinking merely endanger true productivity, equanimity, focus, and the ability to relate well to others. If someone does equally well then a mean desire to “beat” the other can surface. If you accept who you are, what you are, wherever and whenever you are, that is a good place to start that will not give rise to these destructive feelings that arise from comparing oneself to others. It makes more sense to compare oneself to oneself. That will give one a sense of whether one is making real progress, will be truly relevant to one’s own performance, and will help supply one with answers as to what needs work. Once this obsession ceases, true work can better begin.

Distractibility. People vary quite a bit in this as to personality, but people who are in all ways so-called “normal” can easily create or allow distractions that can undermine the activity that is study. Do you have a quiet place to work? Are there visual distractions? Are there annoyances? If your physical space is free of distractions, what about your own mind? A lack of focus is not necessarily distraction, since one may simply have difficulty focusing, but focusing on something else is not going to get you walking along the road to productive studying.

Cynicism. This term is difficult to define and has many philosophical senses which are quite irrelevant to the present concern. What I mean here is a negative assumption that study is useless, or boring, or annoying, or given to other negative associations. What these are in fact are labels that plaster over someone’s prospective idea of studying, and negative associations demotivate like nobody’s business. Studying is not always of great interest to the student, but in those cases the study may have value as a means to something else, such as a degree in good standing which can lead to other studies or career opportunities that are of great interest. The “uninteresting” often relates to the interesting in ways that make it all of some real interest.

Lack of structure. Sometimes people are told to study, or tell themselves to study, and somehow they drift into study-like behaviours such as picking up books and then drift into phone calls or emails or television and somehow the studying dissipates. Or they go on studying until they are overtired and thus physically demotivated. Either outcome is unsatisfactory. It makes sense to schedule study activities, to let people know one is not to be disturbed within reason, to let the answering machine or the computer handle one’s messages, and to clearly distinguish study from other activities such as entertainments. Limiting the time one studies is also key, otherwise one becomes tired and discouraged, feeling guilty for no good reason. I remember a time of difficulty in completing my doctoral thesis, and it helped enormously to schedule a time for study that I could easily keep. I ended up honouring it, and felt refreshed after, and remarkably focused during the activity because I was dedicated to it. The defined study time period made it possible to feel satisfied after achieving it, which is not possible if one only drifts from one thing to another. Everyone is different so the structure of study depends partly on how oneself is structured psychologically, physically, socially, and also in part on how one chooses to structure oneself through repeated choices that lead to habits. Every time we choose this reinforces neural “wiring” in the brain, so habits have, in part, a biological basis.

Fears. This is a different problem than cynicism, which itself may feel fearless. People fear failure, how they will be “rated” by others, incomprehension, or any number of problems which may prove entirely groundless. People can indeed worry to excess. One instead can keep an open mind that there may be no problems, or that one can afford to encounter difficulties and see them as an opportunity, as Einstein put it, and deal with real problems with real solutions instead of being vaguely haunted by general fears. These will surely cramp motivation that exists, and be a positive de-motivator in relation to studying.

Ego problems. It is crucial to avoid overgeneralizations of all kinds, but many fall into the trap of making generalizations about themselves, that they are “great” or “losers” and so forth. This leads to ego problems, where one expects to be great and so cannot deal with “flaws.” Flaws in “oneself” can better be translated into the thought of “problems requiring solutions—or perhaps no solutions, since not all issues are like that.” Overconfidence can mean jumping to conclusions or trusting excessively to easy judgment, as well as obnoxiousness which horrendously interferes with study as a potentially social activity. Underconfidence—that just leads away from studying altogether. Everyone needs self-assessment, but paradoxically it should lead away from self in a sense and focus on particular issues, actions, problems, etc.—what works and what doesn’t? What needs improvement and what is good, and what must simply be accepted for what it is? Some people feel the need to think of themselves as great not to feel good about themselves, but because others have the expectation that they ought to be great as “good people,” or as the child of someone who is intellectually brilliant, etc. Studying however is impossible without some peace of mind, and a large part of that is first of all accepting what is, as a matter of fact, before one concerns oneself with ideas of what ought to be. One can best progress to a more ideal state with a firm footing in reality. Rejecting reality as it is because it is not as it “ought” to be can reach irrational extremes, and some have called it “shoulding” all over oneself. Rejecting reality then becomes destructive, demotivating, disorienting, and ego becomes lost, not feeling “great” at all. It is also an ego problem of a social nature to be afraid of being considered a “nerd.” This can actually demotivate students. A good student is just that—treat the category of nerd as an amusing stereotype that we should not use in earnest at best, and a cruel attempt to belittle scholars at worst. No one can put you down without your permission, but those who try to make others feel bad are usually academically demotivated themselves, feel badly about it, and think they will feel better by putting others down. If you genuinely have nerdy traits such as absent-mindedness, do not fear it, but accept yourself as you are, and laugh with others who laugh with you.

Lack of priorities. Some people feel no inclination to study because they have made overly large priorities out of other worthwhile things, such as socializing, amusements, reading the news, sports, and so on. If other activities entirely absorb one, then one simply has not left room for studying. Unfortunately, the de-motivators that I am discussing can lead to studying-avoidance which itself makes studying fall to a lower priority than even the student feels right about, so all of these factors are interconnected. Any one action connected with studying needs the flow of motivation which can connect to any of the factors discussed here and more.

Hedonism. Some people see clearly the value of fun but fail to appreciate the value of work. Or they fail to distinguish enjoying something as one of life's pleasures, and taking satisfaction out of a job well done. Satisfactory study activities do not have to be “fun,” although they sometimes can be, especially if one is “psyched” to study.

Being spoiled. Some students, frankly, are people who have been overindulged by parents who simply provide all needs and wants, not requiring responsibilities in any department of life, and this does not conduce towards taking responsibility for any work including studying. Many do not appreciate the sheer opportunity to study and what it means in comparison to many who are students but have no resources.

Fatigue. I have already discussed this in relation to structuring time to avoid overtiring oneself. Trying to do too much our of overeagerness is self-defeating and leads to the opposite of eagerness only too quickly. However, one must sometimes also honour the fact that one is too tired even to begin studying productively, and forcing oneself unkindly to do so may lead to a self-inflicted distaste for the general activity. Taking a break to take a walk, eat a healthy snack, or call a friend briefly can be just the thing for a break.

Depression. Did it ever occur to the author of the book on studying that sometimes students are de-motivated not due to any character flaws, or even necessarily being naïve about study tactics, but because the student may be ill? Depression is an illness that is intrinsically demotivating. It is not the fault of the person who has it. This illness will typically last as long as 9 months if no intervention is taken. That is enough to derail any student’s studying career, at least temporarily. Often it is not even diagnosed. Effective treatment requires not just pills—although persistent trial and error in this department can be very helpful. Treatment of the mind as well as the brain and the body--i.e., cognitive therapy—is also key. What we think always affects what we feel, and the earlier comments on cynicism clearly illustrate this fact. If one thinks of studying in negative terms, guess how one will feel about it? Take your pick of negative feelings: fear, sadness, anger, frustration, indifference, and so forth.

Addictions. Some people are self-aware enough to realize they are addicted to alcohol, drugs, sex, foods, praise, or whatever, but they may fail to take into account that addicts tend to obsess about the object of addiction and lose interest in everything else. Someone who underestimates the sinister power of this phenomenon may think they are not interested in studying when in fact they are merely endangering themselves. Kick any existing addictions with kindness to yourself and others and persistence—whatever else it takes.

Relationship problems. The individual student is a social creature, and key relationship issues may involve an emotional toll that hacks into study motivation. Keep relationships healthy not just because everyone deserves it regardless, but as a part of good study hygiene.

Financial instability. Although financially poor scholars can accomplish magnificent work, it cannot be underestimated how much this can interfere with studying through stress, excessive demand to work for pay, self-blame, and so forth. Do not borrow or spend too much for starters, although I will not digress here except once again to be cautious about confusing lack of motivation to study with being a “bad person” who has no such interest. People are so much more complicated than that, and what they are actually can be very different from what they are potentially.

Stress in general. Study is a form of work, but we cannot work at our best unless we also learn how to relax. Ways of relieving stress as well as causes of stress are legion, but do not forget to get enough physical exercise, as many students are wont to do, since an underexercised body is itself stressed with poor energy, concentration, feeling poorly, etc.

Excessive criticism. Is there a concern then that there is still no motivation to study? There is a tragic expression that curiosity killed the cat, which usually involves a lack of empathy for cats, but a more applicable maxim would be that cattiness may kill curiosity. Curiosity is natural and all children who are not abused or deficient in nutrition or other physical respects have and exhibit it. Many children lose curiosity due to cattiness on the part of instructors, who are supposed to be facilitating learning. I have heard that what people fear most, even more than public speaking, is criticism from others. There is a reason for this. Criticism entails a problem that one genuinely faces—or perhaps the whole category of problems, and nothing is more problematic than that! Or else it is not a genuine problem, or not perceived to be so, and then one has to satisfy someone on a point where there is nothing wrong, which itself is another kind of problem. So no wonder people fear criticisms, when feelings of self-worth, so central to one’s being, may also be at stake! People often focus on problems in a working sort of way to try to improve matters. Taken to excess, however, then one has an endless stream of problems and no satisfaction in what one is doing. Therefore, inevitably, the activity becomes unsatisfying. Therefore, predictably, one has little or no motive to do it. It is important to be positive and affirming of what one accomplishes. Not excessively so, and not making overgeneralizations about oneself as an entire person as egoistic people might be tempted—for it is particular things, traits, achievements, etc. that we have to be positive about. Criticism is of great value. It is what can make us better and also feel better about what we do. But it can be exaggerated to the point where people dread it and then they may cease to learn from it altogether in a self-defeating cycle. Positive criticism or praise has a place in keeping things satisfying or gratifying. People can only handle so much negative criticism at a time so it makes sense to be generous with praise, and to pace either criticism, or more realistically, pacing one’s attention to individual criticisms so one can handle it all a bit at a time. This applies to all things including studying: big things can be intimidating, but little logical steps that are part of a master-plan are generally inviting.

Lack of fit with abilities and interests. Sometimes one studies what one is not so able to do, or one’s personality is not so suited to the subject matter. This should not be confused with lack of study motivation in general but should be respected along with one’s general uniqueness.

Laziness. This is a possibility, but usually I have found that students are merely blocked in their motivation in one of the ways I have mentioned or in other respects. The author of the “self-help” book I mentioned at the beginning would no doubt be a fan of this typically unhelpful label. So there is a lack of motivation. Why? What can be done about it?

Getting motivated to study is often just a matter of realizing the reasons why one is engaged in the activity: to learn, achieve, make some career progress, eventually earn money as a means to many other ends, and so on. Getting motivated, since people are naturally curious and interested in these other rewards, is often just a case of getting “un-demotivated”! As de-motivators are progressively defused, studying can emerge as the rich, rewarding and enjoyable activity that it can be for absolutely every student. Happy studying!

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Retraction and Apology

I would like to issue an absolute and unequivocal retraction of the allegations that I made earlier in the history of this blog to the effect that Professor Gary L. Francione in any way plagiarized the ideas of Professor Robert Garner. To help clarify, the matter was over the insight that animal welfarism’s restriction against “unnecessary suffering” can logically lead to abolishing speciesist practices (for a discussion of this idea in a completely different context, I refer the interested reader to “Francione on Unnecessary Suffering,” i.e., the blog entry for July 28, 2007). Now there are always common ideas that can be found amongst any thinkers and the two professors have very different ways of thinking. Francione sent me his thoughts on the matter, which I found to be informative. I add that I should have sought out his thoughts on this to begin with, and I do sincerely regret this error of omission. Francione’s own opinion, if I may paraphrase my understanding of the ideas in question, is that Garner’s argument is part of his general stance as an “animal welfarist.” Francione himself argues against such animal welfarism, and so the fabric of the ideas in question is unmistakably distinct and different. (To see my own reflection of the animal welfarism vs. anti-animal-welfarism debate, and of Francione's and Garner's polarized views, please see generally Sztybel, "Animal Rights Law: Fundamentalism versus Pragmatism," Journal for Critical Animal Studies V (1) (2007): 1-35.) To sum up briefly, my finding is that the case in question does not constitute a case of “intellectual theft.” I was in error about this matter.

I would also at this time like to issue an unmitigated apology to Professor Francione and also to anyone else who might suffered due to my rash and regrettable actions. Let none of what I wrote in the deleted blog entry in question cause anyone to so much as seek to bring into question Professor Francione’s academic integrity and honesty.

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

The Red Carpet

Francione, in Rain without Thunder, and whenever he speaks or writes on the topic, calls animal rightists “outsiders” to the legislative process. His reason is that animal rightists would not be taken seriously by contemporary legislators, and to be taken seriously, the activists would need to water down their activism.

This is a falsifiable claim. Consider the case of Austria. This country was one of the first to ban battery cages for hens. Such cages are consummately cruel. Typically they are made of wire, and stacked up to 20 high, imprisoning hens who lay eggs. Stacking that high means the birds poop and pee on those living below them through the wire floors. Their toenails, ordinarily kept trim by walking around, often grow around the wire of the cages, becoming entangled, in this environment where they never get to exercise outdoors, and breathe clean air. The stench makes human visitors gag, and so they often wear gas masks. The birds’ feathers are often lost and skin rubbed red raw from being stuffed often 5 to a cage whose dimensions offer the “floorspace” of a folded up newspaper. The birds are thus driven insane, and the noise is a horrid cacophony in their sentence to nearly always darkness. Often one bird, who would be the submissive one in a normal pecking order, passively starves or dies of dehydration in a corner of the cage, but is calculated to be “expendable” by the exploiters, who count pennies but not animal suffering. Veterinary care is confined to removing dead birds—but often not even that. And so on. Francione, in Rain without Thunder, makes it clear he would only abolish battery cages if a substitute fully respects hens’ freedom of movement (the complete respect for a given interest requirement which I discuss in “Animal Rights Law”). That’ll be the day, when legislators grant as much space as an animal-rights-governed animal sanctuary! At any rate, Austria banned the practice, and no doubt brought in confinement systems that are not quite what an animal rightist would ideally desire. The shortcoming is predictable, frankly, due to prevailing speciesism and capitalism. However, before this legal coup there was a press conference of all the animal protection groups in Austria, protesting the battery cages. Such a feat is unheard of in Francione’s home country, the USA, and my own of Canada. But that unity in the campaign contributed to its political success. Now some of these groups were animal rights groups.

Politicians are not dummies. They know that the animal rights groups are more radical than the campaign superficially suggests, and advocate the abolition of keeping hens for egg-laying altogether some day. But the politicians took these animal rights groups seriously, and these groups did not need to compromise their radicalism. These animal rightists did not hide or pretend to be something they are not. It would not be best for animals, these animal liberationists must have thought, to play the role of political outsiders. The politicians knew they represented part of an overwhelming spectrum of popular votes since the campaign electrified the nation through effective media usage. So Francione is dead wrong that groups need to compromise to achieve insider status. His calling for animal rights supporters to be political outsiders creates marginalization of these activists as a self-inflicted wound. Animal rights fundamentalists, astonishingly enough, are "self-marginalizers." Not just achieving "welfarist" legislation is key. It means a lot to have animal rights voices at the negotiating table, even if those voices are understood more than heard outright. Otherwise, as a logical feature of Francione's vision, it would be just traditional "welfarist" voices in the halls of political decision-making. Such voices see relatively minor dispensations to animals as their only due.

Apparently he is waiting for a red carpet to be laid out for him before he sets foot in a legislature to advocate laws to help animals. Yes, as he says, he only wants to be an “insider” if he does not lose his radicalism. He does not just mean radicalism in the above animal rights pragmatist sense of having a long-term goal of the eradication of speciesism. No, he means that he should comfortably be able to demand his version of “proto-rights” now, and be taken seriously by the politicos who run the country. But that cannot be for the foreseeable future, hence the abandonment of legislating as a futilitarian goal for the time being.

Let’s think on this a moment. What would it take for a legislature, or members of it, to take seriously Francione’s proto-rights measures? Why, they would have to be in favor of , or demonstrably open to being persuaded that, animals should receive 100% protection of this or that interest (such as freedom of movement in the example given above). Why, then they would have to be animal rights people, or just achingly on the cusp of becoming that, virtually waiting to be persuaded, because only animal rights people favor 100% respect of interests. Others agree that animals should be used “humanely,” and the animals’ usage (which I characterize as ill usage in “The Rights of Animal Persons”) takes a priority. This state of affairs in turn means that human interests (including profit-making ones) must take priority. Human interests taking priority is normally incompatible with 100% respecting of any given animals’ interest. It just works out that way since larger hen spaces cost humans money. That is why the legislators would need to be animal rightists (or wannabe animal rightists) not animal “welfarists”--in the speciesist sense where humans take priority--if the law-makers are to be genuinely and practically receptive to Francione's proto-rights for animals.

So Francione is waiting for the carpet to be rolled out by fellow animal rightists in the legislature, or wannabes. That is the inescapable logic of the situation. But that is not all. Francione is not talking just about preaching to the converted. He wants to change politicians’ minds. So if there is a minority of animal rights sympathizers in a legislature (and even that today is a remarkable political achievement), it is not they who pose a threat to Francione’s “insider status” being watered down. No, the concern is with those who disagree with animal rights who would not take animal rights seriously, and according to Francione, pragmatically require that he “water down” his stance. So he would still have to stay out of the legislature, because he would still “need” to water down his views given the minority status of animal rights in the legislature. That minority would not be enough to pass legislation, and he would have to deal with the animal-rights-hostile-or-indifferent majority of law-makers. What about one day, when there is a majority of animal rights politicians in the legislature? Why, then he could march in proudly, and the red carpet would be firmly waiting for him. Before then, there would presumably be no animal-protective legislation, by his lights, since under his leadership, there would not be any such vain “insider-status-seeking.” So up until whole animal interests can readily be protected, a far-flung day I might add, animals will get no legislative relief at all.

The red carpet he is waiting for would be red with the blood of animals whose lives would be that much more hellish because he is “waiting for the day” with his cronies. You can read about the Austria example in the second edition of In Defense of Animals, in the essay, “How Austria Achieved a Historic Breakthrough for Animals,” by Martin Balluch, a leading activist in the campaign. The Austrian ban and how it was won proves that Francione’s basic concern about insider status is dead wrong. (At least if the animal rights radicalism is to be logically defensible.) And the logic of Francione’s “waiting game” proves that animals will end up much more wrongly dead if people follow Francione’s example. The animals will not get legislative relief from the worst of vivisection, factory farming, and the like until “the day.” Well, I’m not waiting, and hope you will join me in my impatience with futilitarians, who in turn are so impatient for animal rights that they lose sight of the realities of our present situation.



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.

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

Francione's Three Feeble Critiques of My Views

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

Francione's Mighty Boomerang


DR. DAVID SZTYBEL HOME PAGE


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

On the Futilitarian Front We Are Winning, But Have Not Won Enough!

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.

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

Francione's Three Feeble Critiques of My Views

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

Francione's Mighty Boomerang


DR. DAVID SZTYBEL HOME PAGE


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

Friday, January 11, 2008

Two New Web Publications

I have just published my first book! Literally, since I have published it myself on my website. It is entitled Acts of God and was mostly written during my doctoral years. I want to make it available for free in order to help the movement against oppression wrought by people who insist on oppressive practices stemming from the Bible.

Another publication is a "MIRROR PRODUCTIONS" version of "Animal Rights Law: Fundamentalism versus Pragmatism," for people who find the original academic article too dense, or if they just want a short, quick version of the essential ideas.

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

Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Shifting to a Homemade Blog

Today I am shifting from my free Tripod blog builder to a more homely, because homemade, blog format. That is, I am reprogamming the thing from scratch using HTML. (What you are reading now is the new blog configuration.) The problem with Tripod is that other things came free with it too: long wait times to visit the blog, long wait times to revise it (up to the better part of an hour at times!), lost entries, lost formatting, and program errors that do not permit indexing of entries, etc. All for free!!! One day I plan to offer a new website on a different service (this one is free) and pay for a plan that excludes obnoxious and time-consuming (for loadup purposes) advertisements, but that is a project for another day.