Home Box Office recently aired a documentary, Death on a Factory Farm. The documentary concerns an undercover investigation of the Wiles Hog Farm in Ohio. The investigator, who worked for the Humane Farming Association, secretly filmed the hideous treatment of the animals and brought his evidence to the local prosecutor, who filed ten criminal charges against Wiles, his son, and an employee.
The outcome of the prosecution? Only one charge resulted in conviction. The punishment? A $250 fine and required training in pig handling and transportation. The defendants and other farmers who supported the defendants argued that the practices depicted in the documentary were not criminal and represented “the commonplace reality of producing livestock for consumption.”
And they were right.
What is depicted in the documentary is, indeed, nothing short of torture. But what happened at the Wiles Farm was no different from what transpires on every large factory farm. What was depicted in the documentary is commonplace. If you ate pork last night, that animal was subjected to more or less the same sort of treatment.
That is why animal advocates should not support the efforts of animal welfare organizations to make animal exploitation more “humane.” Animal exploitation on the scale needed to feed even a small portion of the world’s human population cannot be made more “humane” in any significant way. The economics of production and the property status of animals make it impossible–not just difficult–impossible. We would, of course, still have to deal with the moral question of whether animal use can be justified irrespective of how “humane” it is, but we can be assured that it will never be “humane” because it will always involve a significant degree of torture.
Welfarist reforms such as California’s Proposition 2 or the campaign in favor of gassing chickens are similar to putting pretty wallpaper in a torture chamber. Just as the wallpaper may make those inflicting the torture feel better about their surroundings, these reforms make those who exploit animals–and that includes everyone who supports the demand by consuming flesh, dairy, eggs, etc.–feel better about the fact that they consume animals. Just as the wallpaper does nothing of any significance for the human victims of torture, the window dressing of animal welfare reforms does little for the animal victims of torture.
There is really just one morally sound and practical response to animal exploitation: go vegan and devote whatever time and resources you have to creative, nonviolent vegan education.
POST YOUR COMMENTS BELOW
So it would be acceptable to torture humans who are on their deathbeds just because they are going to die anyway?? We still treat them with respect and dignity. I see no difference with animals - they think, they feel..
tlvespa331,
animal welfare regulations only exist to serve human interests, they serve the interests of the animal exploiters, the consumers and to a great extent the animal welfare organisations. A couple of examples of how welfare regulations serve animal exploiters are the use of the captive bolt gun, and CAK (controlled atmosphere killing method) employed. These killing methods are promoted as being humane, not only by animal industry, but by welfare organisations, and although they may be 'nicer' ways of murdering animals , the purpose of these regulations exist to INCREASE profit and improve 'product' quality. Eg: less worker injuries, faster product lines, less bruising of the animal, etc..plus they make consumers feel better about buying a more 'humanely' killed animal product. One of the most significant reasons why animal welfare laws are passed in the first place is precisely to serve the interests of exploiters or consumers, certainly not the animals. Using the analogy of humans on their deathbeds and animal deaths in agriculture is completely different. The life AND death of an animal is the result of exploitation, they are brought into existence purely for human ends, they are property. Therefore, the focus should NOT be on the way they die, but why are they being exploited in the first place. Focusing resources and convincing people that the problem is in the WAY animals are treated only STRENGTHENS the property status of animals, it does not address the real issue, being the exploitation of animals for human ends.
Most people agree that animals should be killed humanely, but agreeing on this does not in any way bring about a change in mind and heart about the immorality of using animals in the first place. Therefore, why should animal advocates support welfare reforms that maintain the status quo of exploiting animals, why not directly address the issue of not using animals AT ALL!
For some reason humans get the words humane and inhumane confused. To be sadistic and cruel is to be humane, or acting in a human way. To be kind and moderate is to be inhumane or inhuman/non human. Research it, you find that the most vicious, cruel, cowardly, uncontrolled violence is committed by one species. Every other species has instincts and naturally moderate behavior.
Animal welfarists basically want to turn back the clock to 1900--the time when George Bernard Shaw became a vegetarian .
Devoting too much energy to the line of thinking 'we will never stop meat eating so we should just focus on making it less cruel." is like saying "we will never stop child abuse so we should just focus on making devices that dont leave permanent scars for abusers."
i think the whole thing will work itself out eventually. either people will stop defending the indefensible practice of animal exploitation and go vegan, or they will let it be their demise. whether by heart disease, cancer , or other lifestyle diseases the reality is that in the end the animals kill you back. this is why vegan education is so vital, people first have to know there is a choice in order to make the best one.
a wise vegan once said that they think of all people as being somewhere along the path to veganism. that includes people who are standing at the start line hugging their hamburger with one hand and covering their eyes with the other.
Francione captures exactly what is wrong with the current animal rights movement, in that the major organisations like PETA, farm sanctuary, and HSUS tow a strong welfarist line, encouraging and supporting so called 'humane' legislation and laws. Not only does this confuse the public about what 'animal rights' means (the right not to be treated as property), but it deeply confuses animal advocates who actually get behind these organisations, thinking that someday through enough legislation and 'humane' laws more and more people will 'realise' exploiting non humans is morally wrong and thus animal exploitation will be abolished. Animal advocates who actually believe promoting humane practices has a link with people becoming vegan , are kidding themselves. Most of the public already agree that animals should be treated humanely, thanks to welfarist organisations, so the belief is only strengthened and people get to feel 'good' about buying free range. Another key characteristic of welfare laws, as Francione constantly points out, is that they only ENFORCE the property status of animals. Just like laws exist to protect and conserve parks and rain forests, whose preservation serves the interests of humans, likewise is the same in relation to animal welfare laws, they only serve the interests of humans. The protect the animal from becoming 'damaged', they act to prevent humans agressively acting against other humans, and ultimately it makes people feel good about continuing to consume animal products. The only reason people can easily get away with animal cruelty practices in farming is precisely because the law does not recognise the person hood of animals, they are only property. And usually the abuser is only charged because of his/her damage to the animal, as a product. Just read that article, the only conviction was as a result of failure to observe 'proper' handling and transportation practices. Animal welfare laws can ONLY go as far as enforcing 'proper' practices. How in the world does this lead to people going vegan. Another thing in regards to what Craig Burton said about defending animal rights as you would human rights . Two points to be made her, in most cases violent intervention in animal agriculture has only made advocacy more difficult for animal activists, the break ins of the Animal liberation front, has resulted in even tougher privacy laws and safe guards from the public by animal research labs and corporations, and the Animal enterprise act is the epitome of the reaction of corporations and government to animal advocates. The vast majority of people do not see animals as persons, therefore simply acting out in defence of animals violently will not only cause a violent reaction (as is the case with Animal Enterprise Act), but it will also isolate you from a society that believes animal exploitation IS a human right. In short, Francione knows what hes talking about.
I'm an animist. For me, all things have equal value. I don't assign a human as more valuable than an elk or a rattlesnake. Neither do I think an elk is more valuable than a cabbage. Neither do I think a cabbage is more valuable than a stone.
For animists..all things are sacred..and the mere act of living destroys other lives and things, no matter what kind of creature you are..human, elk, or cabbage. So we don't see a need to "protect" anything from a process that is ongoing, natural, without end, etc.. Eating a cabbage is no less harmful than eating an elk to many animists..
On the other hand, for those who believe in original sin and salvation from sin..well..if that's your worldview..then I can see how you might believe that animals have rights.
I suppose the concept of human rights is also absent in animism?
Btw, there is no need for any supernatural superstition to believe that other animals should have rights. Reason in a context of compassion do the trick quite well.
1. The human body is perfectly healthy on a vegan diet , even the USDA agrees with that for any age group. look it up.
2. Gary Francione is a professor of law and knows more about it in his pinky finger than 10 of you put together.
3. The argument laid out here is for those who are interested in making changes to the way animals are treated (butt out JDalco & Woodworker)
4. The argument is what is the best use of time, money , resources to make significant changes in the way animals are treated.
5. The goal of those who take on an animal rights perspective is to abolish the use aka exploitation of animals.
I agree with Prof. Francione that changes to the laws do not make a significant difference in the way animals live and die. The clause he quotes, "the commonplace reality of producing livestock for consumption.” is also commonly written in the laws as "standard industry practice". The extent to which the laws protect the owner from fault are so extensive it is far more daunting a task to change them than to interest someone in being vegan.
Consider the movie Earthlings, there is not a single person that I personally know who has watched that movie and not changed something about the way they conduct themselves for the better.
The director of Earthlings has been working very hard on getting the movie translated into as many languages as possible. Consider the impact on a person who has watched Earthlings and is more considerate of their daily choices VS. someone who overheard that pigs are able to turn around in California and now probably feels more at ease with purchasing pork than before.
Don't get me wrong I would love for the animals in a bad situation now get some relief but the reality is that we have limited resources to work with and must choose the most effective method for animals living now and in the future. Vegan education does both.
I do not think people are giving vegan education enough credit and if we put our resources towards vegan education there would be far more changes then wasting our time and money in courtrooms.
(JDalco & Woodworker) Animal rights is about ownership; it seeks to end the exploitation of animals not give them voting rights or anything like that. Please get a better understanding of what you are posting about before posting! You are wasting everyone's time. Perhaps you should go read a FAQ page about this topic first. There is a good one here: www.abolitionistapproach.org
In order for a probabilistic or inductive argument for the claim that welfarism is a gateway to abolition to even get of the ground, there must be evidence to suggest that welfarism can effect an overall reduction in demand for animal products. But there is, of course, no such evidence. For welfarism is correlated, not with an overall reduction, but on the contrary with a massive increase, in animal exploitation and slaughter.
The counter-claim, that were it not for welfarism animal exploitation would be even worse, is flawed, on multiple levels. First, even contemporary welfarist measures, as, for instance, CAK and group housing for sows, are explicitly predicated on increase exploitative efficiency, and as such would be supported by industry anyway.
Second, it does not provide even weak (probabilistic/inductive) grounds for the belief that welfarism is casually related, or even conducive, to abolition, for it rests, of course, not on the premise that welfarism can effect an overall reduction in animal exploitation, but instead on the premise that, with welfarism, animal exploitation will indeed keep on increasing, just not as quickly as it otherwise might! And it is difficult, if not impossible, to see why this should be considered a successful strategy, at least from the perspective of animal rights .
Third, even assuming for the sake of the argument that welfarism can effect an overall reduction in demand (which it cannot), it still wouldn't follow that we should support it. Why not? Because welfarism is not maximally conducive to abolition. Only abolitionist vegan advocacy is maximally conducive to abolition.
As for the claim that we should support welfarism, not because it leads to abolition, but rather merely because it reduces suffering, it is an absurdity. There isn't any evidence to even suggest that welfarism can meaningfully reduce animal suffering (by providing non-cost justified protection for animal interests). And welfarists who claim that welfarism is the best we can do, given existing social conditions , persistently ignore the empirical evidence showing that welfarist activism itself limits our advocacy options by creating more cost-effective and more socially acceptable animal exploitation.
As for the claim that it is a betrayal of animals , even speciesist, to reject welfarist regulation, it is also an absurdity. Anyone who tried to regulate the torture of human beings to make it more “humane“ would be considered an apologist for torture.
Finally, activism that focuses on supply rather than demand is worthless. Factory farmed animal products can simply be imported from elsewhere. This consolidates demand behind larger exploiters, exploiters which not only have more lobbying power , but which also can exploit animals more cost-effectively.
As Francione says, the only meaningful animal activism is clear and unequivocal vegan advocacy.
These folks need to wake up and deal with the real world. the human body was not meant to be vegan . We need to eat meat, we evolved to do it and that is the way it goes.
You don't want to, fine that is your choice. You don't have the right to impose your will on me though. How would you feel if we passed a law that you had to eat meat once a week? Ya didn't think you would like it.
Keep your government out of my life thank you. Animals are food , deal with it.