Working Class Vegan

WORKING CLASS VEGAN

HOME MANIFESTO THEORY PRAXIS ACTIVISM CONTRIBUTORS MAIN frontpage about wcv animal rights veganism for the masses featured authors skip to content

MONDAY, MARCH 15, 2010 Subscribe Consistently Opposing Oppression: Why Posts Leftists Should Be Concerned with Animal Rights Categories Comments

Interviews (1)

Twitter: @VeganProle Recommended Books Interview with Jordan Protano- Byrne, abolitionist vegan and Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or activist: http://bit.ly/aDhTm6 4 the Dog? by Gary L. Francione (Temple days ago University Press) Follow me on Twitter Making A Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights by Bob Torres (AK Press) "What it comes down to is this: if we are serious about social and Animals, Property, and the Law by Gary L. economic justice and reject a world view where "might-makes- Francione (Temple University Press) right," then we must expand our view to everyone--especially the Blogs of Note weakest among us. There can be no half-justice for the weak, or Animal Rights/Human Rights: justice means nothing at all..." -Bob Torres, Making a Killing: The Entanglements of Oppression and Animal Emancipation Political Economy of Animal Rights [1] Liberation by David Nibert (Roman & Of oysters and education: why a Littlefield Publishers, Inc.) rights-based approach to vegan education makes sense Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the In Isaac Bashevis Singer’s famous novel Enemies, a Love Story, Singer 4 days ago Animal Rights Movement by Gary L. writes”…in their behaviour towards creatures, all men were Nazis. The Francione (Temple University Press) smugness with which man could do with other species as he pleased Animal Rights: The Animals as Persons: Essays on the exemplified the most extreme racist theories, the principle that might is Abolitionist Approach Abolition of Animal Exploitation by Gary L. Save a Seal; Eat Non-Canadian right.” [2] Francione (Columbia University Press) Seafood 1 day ago This "racist theory" Singer speaks of in his 1966 novel is now known as speciesism, a term created in 1973 after Enemies was published by British My Face Is On Fire psychologist Richard D. Ryder. [3] Archive The Ultimate Mac 'n' "Cheese" Post! ▼ 2010 (2) 2 days ago "I use the word 'speciesism'," Ryder wrote in 1975, "to describe the ► April (1) widespread discrimination that is practised by man against other species ... The Starting Point Speciesism is racism, and both overlook or underestimate the similarities ▼ March (1) Joint Statement by a Group of Abolitionist Vegan Feminists for between the discriminator and those discriminated against." [4] Consistently Opposing Oppression: Why International Women's Week Leftists Sho... 4 weeks ago The ideology of speciesism, that human animals are inherently superior to non-human animals, is used to exclude non-human animals from one's Unpopular Vegan Essays moral community because they do not belong to our species and they do On Veganism and Being Fully not possess our form of cognition and intellect. Human 2 weeks ago Just like race and sex are irrelevant criteria when granting moral rights, Vegan Improv species is an arbitrary characteristic when granting access to the moral Roasted vegetable and hummus community. sandwich with fries 5 weeks ago Some proponents of speciesism claim that humans "have the right to compete with and exploit other species to preserve and protect the human Vegans of Color » Sistah Vegan Book Party TONIGHT species." [5] If one had instead said that whites "have the right to compete (Berkeley, CA) with and exploit people of color to preserve and protect the white race," we Sistah Vegan Book Party see how unjustifiably racist the speciesist ideology really is. TONIGHT (Berkeley, CA) 3 days ago Rights: What is a right?

Professor Gary L. Francione, animal rights philosopher and author at Rutgers University, explains that "a right is simply a way of protecting an interest" and that an interest is "something that we want, desire, or prefer." [6] We all have interests, and sometimes we share common interests, such as interests in food, happiness, shelter, and friendship.

There are basically only two ways of protecting an interest. One, we can protect that interest only to the extent that it would benefit others or produce a desirable outcome. Two, we can protect that interest despite whether it would benefit others or produce a desirable outcome. [7]

To give an example, Francione uses the interest he has in his life. We could protect his interest consequentially, or only protect his interest to the extent that it benefits someone else, such as use him in a medical experiment or take his organs to save the lives of others. [8]

Alternatively, we could protect his interest in his life even if his death would benefit others. In this case, we could say that Francione has a right to his life, which is just another way of saying that his interest in his life would be protected even if beneficial consequences for others would be produced if this interest were not protected. [9]

Francione explains that the right to life is not absolute. If a person, Joe, attacks Francione with deadly force and without being provoked, Francione is permitted to defend himself and take Joe’s life if necessary. In a situation such as this, Joe’s interest in life should not be protected because of his actions. [10]

Francione states, “A right is like a wall that surrounds an interest. On that wall is a sign that reads ‘You cannot trespass just because it will benefit you or others to do so.’ “ [11]

Defining Animal Rights and Equality

To clarify, when the term “animal rights” is used, it does not mean dogs would get the right to vote, or that elephants would get the right to bear arms, or that birds would get the right to a fair and speedy trial. The concept of animal rights does not indicate that non-human animals have equal rights to humans; it means equal consideration of their interests.

Though human and non-human animals are not the same in all respects, we do have similar interests. It is at the point where our interests overlap— seeking comfort, avoiding discomfort, wanting to continue existence in pursuit of life and liberty—that the reasoning 'they aren’t human' becomes unjustifiable as it refuses to give their interests equal consideration.

Disregarding unimportant characteristics such as race, sex, and species, the principal of equality requires that one instance of suffering must be counted equally with the like suffering of any other being.

Morally disrespectful behavior occurs when those who stand at the stronger end of a relationship treat those at the weaker end as if they are objects. Being the property of another involves the commodification of another sentient being; treating them as a something rather than a someone.

While there are many different ideas on what rights someone should have, Francione argues that there is one right that is almost universally accepted; most agree that we have interests in not being the resource or slave of someone else. This is because slaves do not have any real rights. [12]

Any protection slaves receive is strictly consequential; slaves are protected only to the extent that it benefits someone else, usually the slave owner. Slavery treats the enslaved as only having extrinsic or conditional value and denies them inherent value, their value beyond their use to others. [13]

If animals are given rights, should they not they be held accountable for breaking laws? If they cannot understand the concept of rights, communicate, or respect the rights of others, why should they be granted any rights? Non-human animals would fall into the category of marginal cases when it comes to accountability and intellectual capability.

The mentally disabled, senile elderly, and human infants cannot be held accountable for infringing upon other’s rights or understanding the concept of rights, but rights are not withheld from them. Since species classification is irrelevant when it comes to moral rights, rights cannot be withheld from non-humans for the same reasons they cannot be withheld from the mentally disabled, the senile elderly, and infants.

In Sojourner Truth’s famous speech, “Ain’t I a Woman," Truth said:

“Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it? [Member of audience whispers, "Intellect"] That's it, honey. What's that got to do with…rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?” [14]

The basis for receiving rights should not be based on one’s race, sex, sexual orientation, or species classification—because all of these are completely arbitrary—nor should it be based on the ability to communicate, contribute to society, or emancipate oneself—because some of the aforementioned marginal cases cannot accomplish these tasks, yet we would agree that the mentally disabled, senile elderly, and infants should still have basic rights.

Francione argues that "...the right to full membership in the moral community and the right not to be treated as property is dependent on only one characteristic—sentience. If a nonhuman is sentient, then we have a moral obligation not to treat that being as a resource or commodity." [15]

Sentience merely means having the ability to feel pain and having the capacity for basic consciousness. If one is not sentient, one cannot have interests at all. Therefore, one must be sentient for interests to be taken into consideration and one must be sentient to receive rights based on said interests.

Veganism

If the above theory is accepted, how is it put into practice? The answer is simple and easily applicable in every day life: veganism.

It is important to understand that just as abolitionist in respects to human slavery could not continue to own slaves or support those who exploited slaves, an abolitionist in respects to animal exploitation cannot continue to use non-human animals as tools or resources or support those who perpetuate the property status of non-humans.

Being consistent with animal rights theory calls for a rejection of all animal use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, and all other exploitative purposes. Being consistent with animal rights theory requires veganism as the first step.

Veganism is not just a diet, but a moral obligation if we wish to strike at the roots of speciesism in all its forms. Veganism is a moral imperative if we wish to bring an end to an injustice to all animals. Veganism is the very least that we owe to the thinking, feeling creatures with whom we share the Earth.

[1] Torres, Bob. Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights. Chapter 1, page 3. November 1,

2007.

[2] Singer, Isaac. Enemies: A Love Story. 1966

[3] Ryder, Richard. "All beings that feel pain deserve human rights", The Guardian, August 6, 2005.

[4] Ryder, Richard. 1975.

[5] D. Graft (1997) Against strong speciesism, Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol.14, No. 2.

[6] Francione, Gary. "Clarifying the Meaning of a "Right", Abolitionist Approach. AbolitionistApproach.com,

January 31, 2007.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Truth, Sojurner. "Ain't I a Woman?" Women's Convention. Akron, Ohio. May 29, 1851.

[15] Francione, Gary. "Equality and Similarity to Humans", Abolitionist Approach. AbolitionistApproach.com,

June 10, 2007.

Posted by Khaetlyn Grindell at 1:47 PM 0 comments Labels: abolition, consistently opposing oppression, Introduction, speciesism, veganism

0 COMMENTS: