On Non-Violence

"We must embrace nonviolence as a basic normative principle–a principle that we see as reflecting a moral truth–and as the foundational moral principle from which all our moral positions flow."

 

- Prof. Gary Francione

I believe in abolitionism. We should not commodify animals or exploit them for any purpose that only benefits our wants or preferences. I also believe that any species that values its life enough to want to continue living, should be afforded the right not to be treated as property. 

 

However, I believe that there are some areas where there is necessary use of animals, such as vaccine development. Medical research is an area in which I think that animal use is very beneficial, though I would certainly advocate for alternative methods that didn't involve animal use. 

 

I don't mean the science that goes into developing commercial products like shampoo or lipstick -- I'm talking about vaccines and treatments for things like cancer, Parkinson's,  or Alzheimer's. If there is a way we can overcome these things so that billions of lives can be saved (present and future), then I believe that is a rational argument for animal testing, provided a more effective method is unavailable. There is a definite difference between testing a vaccine on an animal to make sure it is effective and safe to use, and making sure there are no carcinogens in your perfume before you use it to smell good.

 

I believe that until you have checked with a veterinarian, putting your animal companions on a vegan diet to serve your own moral comfort is irresponsible and potentially dangerous for the animals, not to mention a suppression of their instinctive drives. Your veterinarian can tell you what the best dietary options are for your animals so they can live long, healthy lives without your moral influence.

 

The "Abolitionist Approach", as codified by Prof. Gary Francione, is one that leaves no room for misunderstanding or exception. He is certainly not the only vegan voice, but in abolitionist circles, he is certainly the loudest. I believe in his fundamental assertions: that animals have the right to not be treated as property; that there is a "moral schizophrenia" that suggests it is okay to eat one type of animal while cuddling another; and that nonviolence and education are the best tools with which to spread information about veganism.

 

The issues I have are with Francione's interpretations of "nonviolent" and "education". He is very judgemental, uses condescending language with people who may have questions or alternative points of view, and accuses people of ignorance and incompetence when they don't agree with him immediately. I would definitely classify his behaviour as offensive, if not violent in tone.

 

As for his style of 'education', since he believes that his viewpoint is an absolute moral truth, he expects that everyone sit down with his body of work and understand it before saying anything more, rather than using that body of work as a text to assume that not everyone is at the same level of expertise as he is. He is disrespectful and rude to people -- something I can't support.

 

He frequently posts shocking incidents and articles of animal abuse and cruelty, but since he makes no moral distinction between outright animal torture/murder and eating steak, he reminds his readers that expressing outrage at such things is wrong, because it is no different than what non-vegans do every day. Perhaps so, but then why post it at all? He knows what kind of reactions he will get from people: shock, revulsion, anger -- only to flay them for reacting that way. This is attention-seeking egotism. 

 

Add to that the fact that Francione is against vaccinations of any sort (since they sometimes use animal products to create, and test on animals), and I can see that we have very different ideas of how to go about this whole veganism thing.

 

Don't get me wrong: I definitely believe in abolitionism, and Prof. Francione is a strong, necessary part of putting an end to animal abuse and fighting for animal rights. But abolitionism predates his "Abolitionist Approach", and I think there's a better way to share and educate people on animal rights and veganism as a moral baseline. I call myself a "compassionate vegan", because it describes both my reasoning for becoming vegan, ad my approach to sharing things and educating people. There is no reason to be arrogant or condescending about a value system that should be a source of inclusion, peace and joy.

 

Prof. Francione's work is a great resource for learning about how far the animal rights movement has evolved over the years, but the animal rights movement doesn't belong to him, and he's not the only resource available. There are many other resources to learn about the benefits of veganism and the importance of animal rights that don't come with the fear of being alienated by others.

 

Nonviolence is kindness, patience and compassion --and if being abolitionist requires that we regard our sentience as having equal moral value, then humans are as deserving of those things as animals are.

I'd rather approach it that way. 

 

--JL.