What do you think?
Rate this book
Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
This book is about a revolution--a revolution of the heart. The exploitation of animals is pervasive, entrenched, and horrific. In this book, the authors reject the idea that animal use is morally acceptable if we treat animals “humanely.” They reject the campaigns for “compassionate” exploitation promoted by virtually all large animal protection organizations. These campaigns, the authors argue, reinforce the notion that we can consume our way out of injustice and trade one form of exploitation for another. They are morally wrong and they are, as a practical matter, ineffective. The central argument of this book is that we need a paradigm shift. We must see nonhuman animals as nonhuman persons. This paradigm shift—this revolution of the heart—starts with our own veganism, not as some sort of “flexitarian lifestyle” issue, but as a basic, fundamental, and non-negotiable commitment to justice and fairness for nonhuman animals. Veganism, as a moral imperative, recognizes that we have no moral justification for using animals—however “humanely”—for our purposes. It continues with our daily efforts to educate others in creative, positive, and nonviolent ways about veganism—something that each of us can do if we want to. Every day, we have opportunities to educate family, friends, colleagues at work, and people whom we encounter in a store or on a bus. Is it easier to write a check to someone else than do the work ourselves? Of course it is. But it won’t work because the large advocacy organizations are not seeking to end animal exploitation; they are, by promoting the idea of “compassionate” animal use, seeking instead to make the public feel more comfortable about continuing to exploit animals. Francione and Charlton, both attorneys and professors at Rutgers University School of Law, have the dual perspective of working on animal issues for 30 years, while developing the abolitionist theory of animal rights. In this book, they discuss six principles that make up the Abolitionist I. Principle Abolitionists maintain that all sentient beings, human or nonhuman, have one right—the basic right not to be treated as the property of others. II. Principle Abolitionists maintain that our recognition of this one basic right means that we must abolish, and not merely regulate, institutionalized animal exploitation, and that abolitionists should not support welfare reform campaigns or single-issue campaigns. III. Principle Abolitionists maintain that veganism is a moral baseline and that creative, nonviolent vegan education must be the cornerstone of rational animal rights advocacy. IV. Principle The Abolitionist Approach links the moral status of nonhumans with sentience alone and not with any other cognitive characteristic; all sentient beings are equal for the purpose of not being used exclusively as a resource. V. Principle Abolitionists reject all forms of human discrimination, including racism, sexism, heterosexism, ageism, ableism, and classism—just as they reject speciesism. VI. Principle Abolitionists recognize the principle of nonviolence as a core principle of the animal rights movement. On the bedrock of these six principles, Francione and Charlton maintain that we can end animal exploitation. About the Gary L. Francione is Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of Law and the Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law. Anna Charlton is Adjunct Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law.
157 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 14, 2015
About the author
Gary L. Francione
16 books210 followersA prominent and respected philosopher of animal rights law and ethical theory, Gary L. Francione is known for his criticism of animal welfare laws and regulations, his abolitionist theory of animal rights, and his promotion of veganism and nonviolence as the baseline principles of the abolitionist movement. Unlike Peter Singer, Francione maintains that we cannot morally justify using animals under any circumstances, and unlike Tom Regan, Francione's theory applies to all sentient beings, not only to those who have more sophisticated cognitive abilities.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
April 14, 2016
Clear, concise and logical. The authors make a solid argument against animal welfarism and the notion that one can humanely use/exploit any sentient being. The abolition of animal use is the goal and veganism (and vegan advocacy) is the means to attain it. However, one needs to first *care* for (any) non-humans in order to have moral concern and feel a moral impulse to stop exploiting them. This book is aimed at those who do care. Its mission is to get you from the welfarist speciesist position to the coherent, non-discriminatory abolitionist one. "The world is vegan if you want it!"
December 15, 2015
This is a must read book for all vegans and for non-vegans who claim to care about non-human animals. A clear, consistent and uncompromising approach for the social justice movement for non-humans, the *only* social justice movement for non-humans, the grass-roots abolitionist vegan movement.
November 23, 2019
Sometimes when people disagree with me on the internet, I recommend a book to them instead of arguing with them. Every once in awhile, the opposite happens, and that's how I found out about this book. I don't think I'm part of the target audience, since I'm not a vegan, and the book seems geared toward those who have already committed to veganism and want to be able to anticipate and address all of their opponents' arguments. In that case, I might be considered less qualified to review this text, but at any rate, I'll explain why I gave it such a low rating.
I do agree with Francione and Charlton on at least one point. Though they see pet ownership as contrary to their belief system, they have dogs in their home they call "refugees." Ideally, they explain, we wouldn't have pets, because we're making all of these decisions on their behalf as though they cannot, including deciding whether they live or die. Their pets would likely have been euthanized if they did not adopt them. The fact that we have domesticated some animals, even bred them to be more to our liking, is not something to be proud of, and is not something that we should continue to do. I'm onboard with this--we should adopt, not shop. That said, one could argue that we do the same thing with children, but the book does not advocate being childless or choosing only to adopt, not give birth.
Intellectually, I understand, to some degree, the moral imperative to be vegan, even if I'm not there (I'm a vegetarian). Biologically speaking, I'm not sure that I do. I'm not a biologist or a nutritionist, so I don't think I'm qualified to argue one way or the other whether humans are better off, health-wise, if we are all vegan. I don't see how Francione and Charlton are, either. But I will say that I don't think we can ignore the plain fact that many, many animals are not vegans. I don't understand respecting animals as equal to humans but then assuming we're superior to them in some way because while they choose to consume flesh, we will not. Modest research tells me that dogs should most likely not be forced to live on a vegan diet, as Francione and Charlton's dogs do. If they are, one has to prepare their meals carefully, and will undoubtedly spend more money to keep them on such a diet. This makes housing "refugees" kind of an elitist endeavor, doesn't it? Some can afford to take care of a pet, but work schedules don't allow them the time to prepare these strict vegan meals, or their limited income would not allow it at all. Such people shouldn't have "refugees," Francione and Charlton might argue. Well, doesn't that just mean more animals will be euthanized in overcrowded shelters?
I'm not satisfied with how they explain sentience, and this is the fulcrum of their argument. It comes off as anthropocentric to me. Animals who are most like us are considered sentient, and can anticipate a future, perhaps plan for it, and have a desire to not be killed. Francione and Charlton are not sure if arthropods fall into this category--their bodies certainly seem less complex than, say, that of a cow or pig, but does this mean they aren't sentient? The authors say we're just not sure, but we're giving them the benefit of the doubt. They try not to kill bugs, and they don't use them as resources (not consuming honey, for example). How are we so certain, then, that plants are not similarly sentient? Again, I'm not a biologist, so I'm just speculating, but so are the authors. The basis for assuming insects have sentience when plants do not seems to me to be centered around their similarities to us--they have faces, they move around, they produce sound, they react to stimuli. Most plants fail to do all or any of those things. I think the argument that we all must be vegan is fundamentally flawed if we can't prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that we aren't causing harm to the other organisms we consume as well. And then what's left to consume? We could talk ourselves out of eating anything that was at one time considered to be alive.
What bothers me most about this book is that the authors don't really attempt to layout their vision for a vegan society. When the vast majority of people think vegans are a joke ("how do you know someone is a vegan? they tell you again, again and again") and scoff at the idea of not eating meat and dairy and investigating all of the products they purchase to be certain they are vegan-friendly, how do you rebuild civilization? I guess you start with education, as they do with this book (however flawed), and hope that you can recruit people, but that is a tiny first step. What will our civilization look like once we have ceased to depend on nonhuman animals for anything? Surely this would take hundred of years, at least, and even so, I can't imagine it. I wish the book had addressed it. Francione and Charlton likened embracing veganism to the abolition of slavery in the United States--something that was met with great opposition, and destroyed an economic system in the southern U.S., but was clearly our moral imperative. The Civil War had a lasting effect on the South, which has lagged behind the rest of the U.S. in many ways ever since. That said, we came up with alternative means of production that did not require slave labor. How will we feed millions of people without using animals in any way? The only way I saw the authors address this is that we would be feeding fewer plants to the animals that we would otherwise have been consuming, but I'm not convinced that this makes up the difference. Another issue I have with the comparison of U.S. enslavement of African Americans and the use of nonhuman animals for resources is that it ignores that slavery never truly ended--it just took on other forms with the introduction of Jim Crow laws and our deeply corrupt prison system. Maybe there is another text out there that outlines the steps our society would take to become completely vegan, but this wasn't it.
All in all, it wasn't a pleasant read, and it was redundant to the point of being exhausting at times. Not for me, but I'd be open to reading more on the subject.
I do agree with Francione and Charlton on at least one point. Though they see pet ownership as contrary to their belief system, they have dogs in their home they call "refugees." Ideally, they explain, we wouldn't have pets, because we're making all of these decisions on their behalf as though they cannot, including deciding whether they live or die. Their pets would likely have been euthanized if they did not adopt them. The fact that we have domesticated some animals, even bred them to be more to our liking, is not something to be proud of, and is not something that we should continue to do. I'm onboard with this--we should adopt, not shop. That said, one could argue that we do the same thing with children, but the book does not advocate being childless or choosing only to adopt, not give birth.
Intellectually, I understand, to some degree, the moral imperative to be vegan, even if I'm not there (I'm a vegetarian). Biologically speaking, I'm not sure that I do. I'm not a biologist or a nutritionist, so I don't think I'm qualified to argue one way or the other whether humans are better off, health-wise, if we are all vegan. I don't see how Francione and Charlton are, either. But I will say that I don't think we can ignore the plain fact that many, many animals are not vegans. I don't understand respecting animals as equal to humans but then assuming we're superior to them in some way because while they choose to consume flesh, we will not. Modest research tells me that dogs should most likely not be forced to live on a vegan diet, as Francione and Charlton's dogs do. If they are, one has to prepare their meals carefully, and will undoubtedly spend more money to keep them on such a diet. This makes housing "refugees" kind of an elitist endeavor, doesn't it? Some can afford to take care of a pet, but work schedules don't allow them the time to prepare these strict vegan meals, or their limited income would not allow it at all. Such people shouldn't have "refugees," Francione and Charlton might argue. Well, doesn't that just mean more animals will be euthanized in overcrowded shelters?
I'm not satisfied with how they explain sentience, and this is the fulcrum of their argument. It comes off as anthropocentric to me. Animals who are most like us are considered sentient, and can anticipate a future, perhaps plan for it, and have a desire to not be killed. Francione and Charlton are not sure if arthropods fall into this category--their bodies certainly seem less complex than, say, that of a cow or pig, but does this mean they aren't sentient? The authors say we're just not sure, but we're giving them the benefit of the doubt. They try not to kill bugs, and they don't use them as resources (not consuming honey, for example). How are we so certain, then, that plants are not similarly sentient? Again, I'm not a biologist, so I'm just speculating, but so are the authors. The basis for assuming insects have sentience when plants do not seems to me to be centered around their similarities to us--they have faces, they move around, they produce sound, they react to stimuli. Most plants fail to do all or any of those things. I think the argument that we all must be vegan is fundamentally flawed if we can't prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that we aren't causing harm to the other organisms we consume as well. And then what's left to consume? We could talk ourselves out of eating anything that was at one time considered to be alive.
What bothers me most about this book is that the authors don't really attempt to layout their vision for a vegan society. When the vast majority of people think vegans are a joke ("how do you know someone is a vegan? they tell you again, again and again") and scoff at the idea of not eating meat and dairy and investigating all of the products they purchase to be certain they are vegan-friendly, how do you rebuild civilization? I guess you start with education, as they do with this book (however flawed), and hope that you can recruit people, but that is a tiny first step. What will our civilization look like once we have ceased to depend on nonhuman animals for anything? Surely this would take hundred of years, at least, and even so, I can't imagine it. I wish the book had addressed it. Francione and Charlton likened embracing veganism to the abolition of slavery in the United States--something that was met with great opposition, and destroyed an economic system in the southern U.S., but was clearly our moral imperative. The Civil War had a lasting effect on the South, which has lagged behind the rest of the U.S. in many ways ever since. That said, we came up with alternative means of production that did not require slave labor. How will we feed millions of people without using animals in any way? The only way I saw the authors address this is that we would be feeding fewer plants to the animals that we would otherwise have been consuming, but I'm not convinced that this makes up the difference. Another issue I have with the comparison of U.S. enslavement of African Americans and the use of nonhuman animals for resources is that it ignores that slavery never truly ended--it just took on other forms with the introduction of Jim Crow laws and our deeply corrupt prison system. Maybe there is another text out there that outlines the steps our society would take to become completely vegan, but this wasn't it.
All in all, it wasn't a pleasant read, and it was redundant to the point of being exhausting at times. Not for me, but I'd be open to reading more on the subject.
September 10, 2021
Certainly, the most unabashedly, unapologetically pro-vegan book I've read thus far - rightly so!
I was quite surprised to see such a thoughtful and reasonable critique of 'Animal Liberation' from a vegan perspective. I'm even more surprised that I agreed with Francione's criticisms of Singer's view of the non-human more times than I disagreed. Indeed, how human-like a non-human animal is (whatever that means) is irrelevant - sentience alone confers moral worth. Admittedly, Singer was writing at a time where vegetarianism was considered weird and hippyish, let alone veganism, so I understand why he framed his arguments that way; it's obviously easier to convince someone that eating animal products is wrong if you demonstrate how alike we and a particular animal are. Nonetheless, the criticism still stands. I was also particularly impressed with Francoine's arguments concerning non-violence. It was something I was debating in my own mind. My views on using violence to meet a political end have changed substantially over the years and I was seriously considering the moral legitimacy of using violence in the name of non-human rights, given the moral emergency of factory farming and climate change. Thankfully, Francione has convinced me out of that position, before I even had a chance to be convinced by it at all. Indeed, most violence (including vegan-motivated violence) is pointless. To modify an example Francione uses, if someone builds a road that people eventually have car accidents on, it would be nonsensical to physically hurt the person that built the road in the name of preventing vehicle-related accidents. The issue is with the action, not the person incidentally committing the action.
However, I'm not altogether convinced by his arguments concerning the abolition of pets. The reason I picked this up is that I knew that this was going to be discussed and I wanted to see what my own thoughts on the issue were. Francione's argument goes as such: non-human animals are treated as 'things', not sentient creatures (true), so it's wrong to treat non-humans as things which humans 'own' (true), therefore to breed companion animals is wrong because, regardless of how we treat them on an individual basis, the system is based on an assumption that animals are our 'things' rather than autonomous beings (false). I'm convinced by premises one and two but not by premise three. If we instil a culture of respect for companion animals and strict laws to prohibit abuse, and provided the methods of breeding companion animals (dogs, for instance) are safe and moral, I see no reason why we shouldn't. This seems to be related to a sort of deontological, principle-based view of non-humans rights - the idea that we should never take anything from a non-human, including companionship, as a general principle, rather than because it results in the most happiness. I don't support a view of morality based purely on abstract 'principles'. Of course, it's not dressed up that way in the book; in Francione's view, breeding a dog is like breeding an infant that will always remain an infant, instead of eventually growing up to be an intelligent person. Of course, it would be wrong to give birth to someone who is forever dependant on the goodwill of their guardian. But what would be wrong with that? If someone were given the option to give birth to an eternal baby, that would always remain a baby, and it made both the baby and their guardian extremely happy, I don't know why that should be considered immoral based on the fact that the baby is forever dependant on their guardian - assuming, of course, that we have extremely strict laws prohibiting abuse of those in our care. There are many human beings on Earth who are dependant on the goodwill of their guardians due to sheer necessity like the mentally handicapped or those with severe physical impediments. Should we abolish those as well? Presumably, the response to that would be to say that, in those instances, we have to put someone's care into the hands of a guardian because there's no other option for those who literally cannot care for themselves. In that case, what does Francione have to say for dogs who help the blind and other such helpers? An even better example - what about non-human animals that provide companionship for those that would otherwise be lonely? Companionship is not just a luxury, it's a necessity. Humans that are isolated have worst health outcomes and quality of life. Even if dogs didn't derive any joy from their relationship to humans (i.e., being under the ward of a human makes them neither happy nor sad), it would still stand to reason that giving a human a companion animal would increase their overall happiness - so what a gift it is that dogs get as much joy from us as we get from them! I do agree that we should move away from 'owning' dogs for much the same way that I'm against 'owning' any sentient creature. It shouldn't be a monetary exchange, it should be about the maximum good for the maximum people - companion animals included.
I was quite surprised to see such a thoughtful and reasonable critique of 'Animal Liberation' from a vegan perspective. I'm even more surprised that I agreed with Francione's criticisms of Singer's view of the non-human more times than I disagreed. Indeed, how human-like a non-human animal is (whatever that means) is irrelevant - sentience alone confers moral worth. Admittedly, Singer was writing at a time where vegetarianism was considered weird and hippyish, let alone veganism, so I understand why he framed his arguments that way; it's obviously easier to convince someone that eating animal products is wrong if you demonstrate how alike we and a particular animal are. Nonetheless, the criticism still stands. I was also particularly impressed with Francoine's arguments concerning non-violence. It was something I was debating in my own mind. My views on using violence to meet a political end have changed substantially over the years and I was seriously considering the moral legitimacy of using violence in the name of non-human rights, given the moral emergency of factory farming and climate change. Thankfully, Francione has convinced me out of that position, before I even had a chance to be convinced by it at all. Indeed, most violence (including vegan-motivated violence) is pointless. To modify an example Francione uses, if someone builds a road that people eventually have car accidents on, it would be nonsensical to physically hurt the person that built the road in the name of preventing vehicle-related accidents. The issue is with the action, not the person incidentally committing the action.
However, I'm not altogether convinced by his arguments concerning the abolition of pets. The reason I picked this up is that I knew that this was going to be discussed and I wanted to see what my own thoughts on the issue were. Francione's argument goes as such: non-human animals are treated as 'things', not sentient creatures (true), so it's wrong to treat non-humans as things which humans 'own' (true), therefore to breed companion animals is wrong because, regardless of how we treat them on an individual basis, the system is based on an assumption that animals are our 'things' rather than autonomous beings (false). I'm convinced by premises one and two but not by premise three. If we instil a culture of respect for companion animals and strict laws to prohibit abuse, and provided the methods of breeding companion animals (dogs, for instance) are safe and moral, I see no reason why we shouldn't. This seems to be related to a sort of deontological, principle-based view of non-humans rights - the idea that we should never take anything from a non-human, including companionship, as a general principle, rather than because it results in the most happiness. I don't support a view of morality based purely on abstract 'principles'. Of course, it's not dressed up that way in the book; in Francione's view, breeding a dog is like breeding an infant that will always remain an infant, instead of eventually growing up to be an intelligent person. Of course, it would be wrong to give birth to someone who is forever dependant on the goodwill of their guardian. But what would be wrong with that? If someone were given the option to give birth to an eternal baby, that would always remain a baby, and it made both the baby and their guardian extremely happy, I don't know why that should be considered immoral based on the fact that the baby is forever dependant on their guardian - assuming, of course, that we have extremely strict laws prohibiting abuse of those in our care. There are many human beings on Earth who are dependant on the goodwill of their guardians due to sheer necessity like the mentally handicapped or those with severe physical impediments. Should we abolish those as well? Presumably, the response to that would be to say that, in those instances, we have to put someone's care into the hands of a guardian because there's no other option for those who literally cannot care for themselves. In that case, what does Francione have to say for dogs who help the blind and other such helpers? An even better example - what about non-human animals that provide companionship for those that would otherwise be lonely? Companionship is not just a luxury, it's a necessity. Humans that are isolated have worst health outcomes and quality of life. Even if dogs didn't derive any joy from their relationship to humans (i.e., being under the ward of a human makes them neither happy nor sad), it would still stand to reason that giving a human a companion animal would increase their overall happiness - so what a gift it is that dogs get as much joy from us as we get from them! I do agree that we should move away from 'owning' dogs for much the same way that I'm against 'owning' any sentient creature. It shouldn't be a monetary exchange, it should be about the maximum good for the maximum people - companion animals included.
January 19, 2022
Clear and sober reasoning. An excellent tool for translating a moral concern and impulse for animals into understandable arguments.
I got a lot out of this book; it crystalized many things I understood intuitively but hadn’t yet heard expressed point-for-point from A to Z. Francione’s language is not emotional, but it is blunt. There is even some humor in the delivery at times.
Some chapters felt short, such as those on nonviolence and anti-discrimination. Perhaps I would have appreciated a bit more of an appeal to emotion on these topics in particular, but that is a matter of taste I suppose.
And for the plentiful examples of animal welfarist and single issue campaigns that the author finds objectionable and counterproductive, there was a glaring lack of positive examples of real-world abolitionist activism.
I got a lot out of this book; it crystalized many things I understood intuitively but hadn’t yet heard expressed point-for-point from A to Z. Francione’s language is not emotional, but it is blunt. There is even some humor in the delivery at times.
Some chapters felt short, such as those on nonviolence and anti-discrimination. Perhaps I would have appreciated a bit more of an appeal to emotion on these topics in particular, but that is a matter of taste I suppose.
And for the plentiful examples of animal welfarist and single issue campaigns that the author finds objectionable and counterproductive, there was a glaring lack of positive examples of real-world abolitionist activism.
May 2, 2021
Honestly difficult to find anything I disagree with in this book.
May 27, 2022
This is definitely the best book I've ever read regarding veganism and animal rights. Concise, clear and pragmatic. Being vegan is a moral imperative.
April 4, 2020
Overall a good book, and one I'd recommend to anyone who wants to learn more about animal rights.
I didn't agree with (or fully understand) some of its arguments against utilitarianist thinking, but it does a solid job discusssing welfarism and the dangers of arguing for "happy" meat.
I enjoyed its defense of veganism as the moral baseline, nonviolence as a core principle (though I'd have liked a more precise definition of what exactly counts as violence) and creative vegan education as a method to pursue change.
I didn't agree with (or fully understand) some of its arguments against utilitarianist thinking, but it does a solid job discusssing welfarism and the dangers of arguing for "happy" meat.
I enjoyed its defense of veganism as the moral baseline, nonviolence as a core principle (though I'd have liked a more precise definition of what exactly counts as violence) and creative vegan education as a method to pursue change.
October 31, 2018
Francione makes excellent arguments and takes a logical approach as to why veganism is an imperative moral baseline, however this book is so similar to the others of his I have read I feel I have learned nothing new. Francione's approach was partly the reason I went vegan and generally speaking I follow it, however he seems to take criticism or questioning quite badly. Not a beginner's guide.
January 22, 2021
they mostly slagged off people who didn't agree with the abolitionist approach instead of proposing their arguments and principles. Yes, they were relevant to the arguments but this was very aggressive and I don't know what I thought I was going to get from reading this, but yeah.....I read it, it had points that I agree with as a vegan, and that is all.
May 13, 2016
Highly recommend this book.
April 10, 2019
The abolitionist approach as defined in this book was coined by Francione to clearly state a position based on the principle that only one thing matters, sentience and this is the only criteria that needs to be fulfilled to be viewed not as a commodity. This leads to certain consequences such as veganism but also, from the perspective of Francione, far beyond only impacts our relation to non-human (sentient) animals but how we relate to other types of oppression (but also based on insignificant criteria such as sex, cultural background, faith/no faith etc).
This book explains both in short and more detailed the Abolitionist Approach.
This book explains both in short and more detailed the Abolitionist Approach.
October 20, 2020
Easy to read. I am very happy to read from an author who truly takes animal rights seriously. I recommend this to any vegan, or anyone who has some knowledge about veganism and intends to become one. If you don't know much at all about veganism, I recommend starting with Gary Francione's book "Eat Like You Care", and then coming back to this
January 25, 2023
“Maintaining that veganism is a moral imperative is not a matter of ‘preaching veganism or vegan fundamentalism.’ It is a matter of fundamental justice.”
This book took me back to my college days in a great way. I love reading about social justice movements and the arguments for them using organized logic. I had a feeling I would click with Francione's writing.
This book took me back to my college days in a great way. I love reading about social justice movements and the arguments for them using organized logic. I had a feeling I would click with Francione's writing.
August 22, 2021
Gary seems to be a strong deontologist, and focus too much on individual purity
February 7, 2022
Let me preface this by saying that I really loved Singer’s “Animal Liberation.” However, ever since I read this book, I struggle to fully explain my dislike for it. I think the main reason is the arguments come across as excessively dogmatic. It reminded me of books I’ve read on libertarianism, in that a moral principle is laid down as beyond reproach and extensions made that you must agree with or be labeled a monster. It felt similar to reading Ludwig von Mises defend his extreme free-market capitalism by using a priori reasoning. In short, the form of argument struck me as overly simplistic and left me unsatisfied.
One complaint I have is with the author’s dislike of single issue campaigns. It’s confusing. Does a particular campaign discourage animal harm? If the answer is “yes” it should be applauded. Not so fast, says the author. He thinks said campaigns muddle the issue by singling out particular acts as especially blameworthy when in reality the cure is for everyone to go vegan. This struck me as highly impractical, bordering on delusion. The author has more or less written off any advancement in animal welfare for some pie-in-the-sky fantasy that veganism will be embraced by the masses. Newsflash: that’s not going to happen, not now, not in 100 years, possibly never. The comparisons to the abolition of human slavery in the book are smart but it’s merely an analogy and it fails. There are persuasive reasons to think many people will not accept non-human animals into their moral circle in the same way they accepted other humans in the past who just happened not to share superficial traits. It’s much more realistic to think that you can convince masses of people that this or that particular thing is wrong (e.g. single issue campaigns), as opposed to altering world views. And keep in mind; it’s not just any world view: it’s a world view that forces you to change the most fundamental habits in life. Namely, what you stick in your mouth multiple times a day. Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for pushing for conversion to veganism or even vegetarianism. I think all levers should be pulled to make as much progress as we can as quickly as possible. I think this book’s author stands in the way of that progress with these arguments.
If you look at Gallup survey data, the percentage of vegans basically hasn’t changed in a long time. Of course, you can cite all sorts of random surveys to cherry pick data, but I’m going with Gallup because of its reputation for studiously collecting and tracking this kind of data. I think far too often vegetarians and vegans pat themselves on the back for all this revolutionary change they’re leading when in reality the ball has made little, if any, advance. Sure, we have plenty of new options, Impossible Meat and plant-based milks to name only two. But you shouldn’t fool yourself into believing we’re on the verge of some breakthrough. If there ever is a day of victory for animals, it will be attained by slow, gradual change at the margins, most likely in unexpected ways.
I want to advance animal welfare now, in my lifetime, and that means supporting single issue campaigns, changing animal welfare laws, encouraging veganism and vegetarianism, and supporting products that are cruelty free, etc. There’s all sorts of things you can do - supporting veganism is only one part. Humans can do multiple things at once.
What’s more, the reasons people give for being vegan or vegetarian are all over the place. I would bet half the people I meet who share my diet give a reason OTHER THAN animal welfare as the basis for their decision. Selling veganism on animal welfare grounds is not a given. I’ll gladly welcome people into the fold for reasons I consider less than ideal. And, yes, I know I’m using “vegan” here to refer only to diet; I realize it has broader lifestyle implications for many. That’s also partly the point: “vegan” as a term isn’t even settled. Former President Clinton calls himself a vegan but it’s strictly dietary with no indication animal welfare played any role in his decision. Many in the animal rights community would excoriate Clinton and say he’s not truly a vegan (see No True Scotsman Fallacy for fun). Is Clinton’s diet good or bad for animals? I say good. It seems obvious. For the abolitionist as described in this book, it isn’t so clear. For them, Clinton might even deserve ridicule.
I have more problems I could list but I’ll end here. The main issue, again, is its dogmatism and oversimplification of complex subject matter. If you want nuance, find another book. If you want a religion-like doctrine, this is your book.
One complaint I have is with the author’s dislike of single issue campaigns. It’s confusing. Does a particular campaign discourage animal harm? If the answer is “yes” it should be applauded. Not so fast, says the author. He thinks said campaigns muddle the issue by singling out particular acts as especially blameworthy when in reality the cure is for everyone to go vegan. This struck me as highly impractical, bordering on delusion. The author has more or less written off any advancement in animal welfare for some pie-in-the-sky fantasy that veganism will be embraced by the masses. Newsflash: that’s not going to happen, not now, not in 100 years, possibly never. The comparisons to the abolition of human slavery in the book are smart but it’s merely an analogy and it fails. There are persuasive reasons to think many people will not accept non-human animals into their moral circle in the same way they accepted other humans in the past who just happened not to share superficial traits. It’s much more realistic to think that you can convince masses of people that this or that particular thing is wrong (e.g. single issue campaigns), as opposed to altering world views. And keep in mind; it’s not just any world view: it’s a world view that forces you to change the most fundamental habits in life. Namely, what you stick in your mouth multiple times a day. Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for pushing for conversion to veganism or even vegetarianism. I think all levers should be pulled to make as much progress as we can as quickly as possible. I think this book’s author stands in the way of that progress with these arguments.
If you look at Gallup survey data, the percentage of vegans basically hasn’t changed in a long time. Of course, you can cite all sorts of random surveys to cherry pick data, but I’m going with Gallup because of its reputation for studiously collecting and tracking this kind of data. I think far too often vegetarians and vegans pat themselves on the back for all this revolutionary change they’re leading when in reality the ball has made little, if any, advance. Sure, we have plenty of new options, Impossible Meat and plant-based milks to name only two. But you shouldn’t fool yourself into believing we’re on the verge of some breakthrough. If there ever is a day of victory for animals, it will be attained by slow, gradual change at the margins, most likely in unexpected ways.
I want to advance animal welfare now, in my lifetime, and that means supporting single issue campaigns, changing animal welfare laws, encouraging veganism and vegetarianism, and supporting products that are cruelty free, etc. There’s all sorts of things you can do - supporting veganism is only one part. Humans can do multiple things at once.
What’s more, the reasons people give for being vegan or vegetarian are all over the place. I would bet half the people I meet who share my diet give a reason OTHER THAN animal welfare as the basis for their decision. Selling veganism on animal welfare grounds is not a given. I’ll gladly welcome people into the fold for reasons I consider less than ideal. And, yes, I know I’m using “vegan” here to refer only to diet; I realize it has broader lifestyle implications for many. That’s also partly the point: “vegan” as a term isn’t even settled. Former President Clinton calls himself a vegan but it’s strictly dietary with no indication animal welfare played any role in his decision. Many in the animal rights community would excoriate Clinton and say he’s not truly a vegan (see No True Scotsman Fallacy for fun). Is Clinton’s diet good or bad for animals? I say good. It seems obvious. For the abolitionist as described in this book, it isn’t so clear. For them, Clinton might even deserve ridicule.
I have more problems I could list but I’ll end here. The main issue, again, is its dogmatism and oversimplification of complex subject matter. If you want nuance, find another book. If you want a religion-like doctrine, this is your book.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews