Accountability in animal ethics means being able to justify one's stance with good reasons. However, one can hardly do so if one's account falls due to logical criticisms that strictly adhere to the essence of what is being argued. Such criticisms cannot be shaken off because again they indelibly apply to the core of what is being asserted. As announced in the last blog entry, I am using the animal rights theory of Gary L. Francione as an example of a view that succumbs to such criticisms. These critiques are by no means dependent on accepting my own theory, but show how the view in question fails on its own terms, impartially considered. I have seen a lot in recent years of people, even academic theorists, being unconcerned with logical problems in their own views, and I think ego may have a lot to do with that. However, what happens in the wake of my criticisms is largely up to other people to decide. In the spirit of open discussion and fair debate, I offer the following critique of Francione's animal rights ethic. I agree with the latter in many respects, but find faults in its reasoning, a very important difficulty for any philosophy. To read this excerpt from my forthcoming book, in PDF format (page and footnote numbers differ from the book), please click HERE.