Animal rights theory
Property status of animals
In "Animals, Property, and the Law" (1995), Francione argues that because animals are the property of humans, laws that supposedly require their “humane” treatment and prohibit the infliction of “unnecessary” harm do not provide any significant level of protection for animal interests. For the most part, these laws and regulations require only that animals receive that level of protection that is required for their use as human property. Animals only have values as commodities and their interests do no matter in any moral sense. As a result, despite having laws that supposedly protect animals, Francione contends that we treat animals in ways that would be regarded as torture if humans were involved. Lastly, Francione states that we could provide greater protection to animals even if they remain our property, but legal, social, and economic forces militate strongly against recognizing animal interests unless there is an economic benefit for humans.
Comparison of animal rights and animal welfare
In "Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement" (1996), Francione argues that there are significant theoretical and practical differences between animal rights, which he maintains requires the abolition of animal exploitation, and animal welfare, which seeks to regulate exploitation to make it more humane. Francione contends that the theoretical difference between these two approaches is obvious. The abolitionist position is that we cannot justify our use of nonhumans however “humanely” we treat animals; the regulationist position is that animal use is justifiable and that only issues of treatment are relevant.
Francione describes as “new welfarists” those who claim to support animal rights, but who support animal welfare regulation as the primary way to achieve incremental recognition of the inherent value of nonhumans. He argues that there is no factual support for this position because not only do regulations seldom if ever go beyond treating animals as economic commodities with only extrinsic value, but the perception that regulation has improved the “humane” treatment of animals may very well facilitate continued and increased exploitation by making the public feel more comfortable about its consumption of animal products.
A central tenet of Francione’s philosophy is that the most important form of incremental change within the abolitionist framework is veganism. Francione has also long argued that the animal rights movement is the logical extension of the peace movement and should embrace a non-violent approach. He maintains that an abolitionist/vegan movement is truly radical and that violence is reactionary.
Relevance of sentience
In his "Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog?" (2000), Francione argues that a theory of abolition should not require that animals have any cognitive characteristic beyond sentience to be full members of the moral community, entitled to the basic, pre-legal right not to be the property of humans. He rejects the position that animals have to have humanlike cognitive characteristics, such as reflective self-awareness, language ability, or preference autonomy in order to have the right not to be used as human resources. Francione derives this right from the principle of equal consideration in that he maintains that if animals are property, their interests can never receive equal consideration.
As part of this discussion, Francione identifies what he calls our “moral schizophrenia” when it comes to nonhumans. On the one hand, we say that we take animal interests seriously. Francione points to the fact that many of us even live with nonhuman companions whom we regard as members of our families and whose personhood—their status as beings with intrinsic moral value—we do not doubt for a second. On the other hand, because animals are property, they remain things that have no value other than what we choose to accord them and whose interests we protect only when it provides a benefit—usually economic—to do so. According to Francione, if animals are going to matter morally and not be things, we cannot treat them as property.
Animal rights movement
Francione’s position differs significantly from that of Peter Singer, author of "Animal Liberation" (1975). Singer, who is a utilitarian, rejects moral rights as a general matter and regards sentience as sufficient for moral status. Singer maintains that some animals do not care about "whether" we kill them and use them for our purposes but care only about "how" we treat them when we do use and kill them. Therefore, animal use in itself does not raise a moral problem for Singer. In Francione’s view, the fact that a being is sentient necessarily means that the being has an interest in continued existence and he rejects the view that animals do not have an interest in whether we use them but only in how we use them.
Francione’s approach also differs from that of Tom Regan, author of "The Case for Animal Rights" (1983). Regan proposes an abolitionist theory but limits it to animals that have cognitive characteristics that go beyond sentience alone. Moreover, although Regan maintains that there is no acceptable way to distinguish between humans and animals for purposes of treating animals exclusively as means to human ends, he maintains that death is always a greater harm for humans than for nonhumans. According to Francione, although Regan distances himself from Singer’s position, this aspect of his theory is uncomfortably close to Singer’s view that death in itself is not a harm for most nonhumans. If Regan is correct, then there is a qualitative distinction between humans and animals that can serve as a way of distinguishing between them for moral purposes. Francione maintains that Regan, like Singer, is wrong in this respect. Francione argues that we may not understand what death means to a nonhuman, but that is a matter of our epistemological limitations. Our inability to understand the meaning of death to nonhumans does not mean that a sentient nonhuman has no interest in continued existence.
Francione’s theory of animal rights, particularly his views on animal welfare, are controversial even within the animal protection movement in that critics claim that animal welfare does provide meaningful protection for animal interests. Moreover, many within the animal protection community maintain that certain animals, such as the great apes or dolphins, ought to receive greater protection based on their cognitive similarity to humans.
Bibliography
* (with Anna E. Charlton) "Vivisection and Dissection in the Classroom: A Guide to Conscientious Objection". Jenkintown, Pa. : American Anti-Vivisection Society, 1992.
* "Animals, Property and the Law". Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995, [ISBN 1-56639-284-5]
* " [http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/francione01.htm Personhood, Property and Legal Competence] . In Paola Cavalieri & Peter Singer (eds.), "The Great Ape Project".New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 1993, pp. 248-257.
* "Rain without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement". Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1996. [ISBN 1-56639-461-9]
* "Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog?". Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2000. [ISBN 1-56639-692-1]
* "Animals As Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation". Columbia University Press, 2008. [ISBN: 978-0-231-13950-2]
Notes
External links
* [http://www.anima.org.ar/liberacion/enfoques/index.html Professor Francione's article in Spanish at Ánima- The abolitionist approach]
* [http://www.guiavegano.com.br/artigos/gary/index.htm Professor Francione's article in portuguese] at Guia Vegano
* [http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach] Professor Francione's Official Web / Blog / Podcast Site
