The "Standards for Confining Farm Animals" initiative statute, or Proposition 2, California, passed 63% for to 37% against. Prop. 2,
On my relief. "Building momentum" towards abolishing certain practices, to borrow from Wayne Pacelle, seems a plausible result given California's media market and the prop.'s overwhelming support:
On my trepidation (perhaps getting at the reasoning that confuses me). On the premise that every creature's interest's ought to be considered morally relevant because of their sentience, the only ethical end is abolition. Incrementalism, then, is instrumentally valuable for the reasons cited above. However, as the argument proffered by abolitionists go, incremental measures to reduce suffering in the present (or near present) may actual prevent this end from being realized.
One such reason, the most plausible I believe, is that when these singular examples - the one's we generally find the most horrendous - are illuminated, challenged and abolished, the ethical nature of the matter, primarily, nonhuman animals are not things and ought to be considered full members of the moral community, which practically results in veganism, begins to get confused. Our moral responsibility may seem to be absolved once the torture of baby cows in veal crates is gotten rid of and PETA proclaims a "victory." The end, then, is transformed from veganism to a "happy meat" revolution.
And so it goes, billions of nonhuman animals are still forced to suffer wholly unnecessarily, while the most prevalent reason to go vegan (e.g., the scene of male cows thrashing about as they are castrated without anesthesia) becomes very well hidden. It's a fiction, of course; the suffering persists; it's still systematic. However, the industry is now given a label, "Humane Certified," and the system, and the monster paradigm that justifies it, becomes even more calcified than before.
I don't know how to resolve this conflict. Welfarism turns on an empirical matter: Do these measures actually reduce suffering? I believe the answer is yes, generally speaking. However, to qualify this "yes," I must say from reading accounts of "free range" methods, and my knowledge about what happens to the "excess" - baby boy chickens, for example -, these "improvements," as measured by real suffering, come in degrees not kind. And then there is the problem articulated above.
As such, measuring Proposition 2 becomes a sort of qualified happiness. To the end of abolition, I'm concerned. Saving 20 million creatures from experiencing the most horrendous suffering, I'm forced by conscience to celebrate.
Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox
"prohibits the confinement of certain farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs."Specifically, three confinement methods - veal crates, battery cages, and sow gestation crates - will come under review, and in the case of battery cages, will be eliminated. I view this result with both a sense of profound internal relief and trepidation.
On my relief. "Building momentum" towards abolishing certain practices, to borrow from Wayne Pacelle, seems a plausible result given California's media market and the prop.'s overwhelming support:
The historic victory for farm animals builds on momentum established in other US states. Colorado and Arizona are phasing out the use of gestation crates and veal crates, and the states of Florida and Oregon have similar measures phasing out gestation crates. Throughout North America, producers are changing the way they house and care for animals in response to this momentum. Smithfield Foods, the world's largest pig producer, and Maple Leaf, the largest pig producer in Canada, are phasing-out gestation crates. The American Veal Association voted to urge the entire US veal industry to phase out veal crates.
By adopting these measures, the United States is moving in the same direction as Europe. The entire European Union is phasing out barren battery cages by 2012 and gestation crates by 2013, and has already banned veal crates. Several European countries already have enacted protections for farm animals that exceed the European Union's measures.And more importantly, I think, as a matter of fact, phasing-out veal crates, for example, does go a significant way towards reducing actual suffering. Those who would challenge this with, "It's still a violation of rights," are highly suspect, and I believe allow the abstract to consume the real. Many of us who believe in the philosophy of animal rights often accept our position as moral persons and argue accordingly. "We all have the right to..." becomes our mantra; however, it is from this position that allows us to forget about the 10 individual chickens who are forced to live in a single, barren, wire cage. While we discuss abolition, incremental moves to take those chickens out of the cage and put them on an open floor are derided. I believe this kind of reasoning is derived from our position as non-nonhuman animals. If considered impartially, it seems unreasonable to argue that I, if in the position of a veal cow, wouldn't want to be removed from the crate and allowed to turn around because this would imply the assumption that it is okay to kill me unnecessarily if I'm only treated properly. I think PETA's argument that "Animals are not ours to..." sufficiently addresses the ethical need to abolish the animals-as-property paradigm. Welfare legislation, then, framed as such, deals with the here and now of suffering and some of it should be lauded.
On my trepidation (perhaps getting at the reasoning that confuses me). On the premise that every creature's interest's ought to be considered morally relevant because of their sentience, the only ethical end is abolition. Incrementalism, then, is instrumentally valuable for the reasons cited above. However, as the argument proffered by abolitionists go, incremental measures to reduce suffering in the present (or near present) may actual prevent this end from being realized.
One such reason, the most plausible I believe, is that when these singular examples - the one's we generally find the most horrendous - are illuminated, challenged and abolished, the ethical nature of the matter, primarily, nonhuman animals are not things and ought to be considered full members of the moral community, which practically results in veganism, begins to get confused. Our moral responsibility may seem to be absolved once the torture of baby cows in veal crates is gotten rid of and PETA proclaims a "victory." The end, then, is transformed from veganism to a "happy meat" revolution.
And so it goes, billions of nonhuman animals are still forced to suffer wholly unnecessarily, while the most prevalent reason to go vegan (e.g., the scene of male cows thrashing about as they are castrated without anesthesia) becomes very well hidden. It's a fiction, of course; the suffering persists; it's still systematic. However, the industry is now given a label, "Humane Certified," and the system, and the monster paradigm that justifies it, becomes even more calcified than before.
I don't know how to resolve this conflict. Welfarism turns on an empirical matter: Do these measures actually reduce suffering? I believe the answer is yes, generally speaking. However, to qualify this "yes," I must say from reading accounts of "free range" methods, and my knowledge about what happens to the "excess" - baby boy chickens, for example -, these "improvements," as measured by real suffering, come in degrees not kind. And then there is the problem articulated above.
As such, measuring Proposition 2 becomes a sort of qualified happiness. To the end of abolition, I'm concerned. Saving 20 million creatures from experiencing the most horrendous suffering, I'm forced by conscience to celebrate.
Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox
Look,
Abolition is NOT our end. It is one of TWO ends. The first is the prevention and reduction of suffering, and the second is abolition. We might even go further, and say that the "second end" of abolition is derived from the first end of reducing suffering, and is therefore only a means to that first end. Look at how Francione frames it: "we will never give animals' interests' equal consideration if we continue to regard them as our property." The ultimate end is admitted to be consideration of interests (the main interest being in not suffering) and abolition is claimed to be the only practical means to it. But ending suffering is still seen as an end in itself. We can't get away from that.
And we forget that there is a very big difference between a pig who goes insane from never being able to move, and a pig in a hoop barn. And so on. I mean, really.
We oppose the reforms probably for various personal psychological reasons, like anger at people who will never see how bad the suffering was, or the desire to stop all the suffering now, etc., but that's letting your self-interest get in the way of what is ethical. That's exactly what we claim non-vegetarians to be doing, isn't it?
Mark D
Right Mark, when I say that "abolition is the only ethical end," I mean to do so with the implied assumption that given the premise that sentience ought to be sufficient to include one in our moral deliberations, abolition follows. Therefore, as it is sentience that I emphasize, presuming as I do the impartial badness of suffering, preventing unnecessary suffering is the end. Abolition, then, is the only ethically consistent goal that we ought to be trying to realize.
This, I think, gets to my point about the validity of incrementalism turning on an actual reduction of suffering, given the premises of welfarism. However, on my premises, incrementalism is only ethical if it reduces suffering along the way to abolition, which demands attention to the problem I raised above about "happy meat." An empirical reduction of suffering isn't sufficient if it doesn't engender support for abolition - "happy meat," of course, may go the other way.
Yeah I was agreeing with you against the opponents
I stopped by Richard Dawkins' forum yesterday. Some interesting debates about animal rights...
Haha, yeah, I'm "md6379a" in the forum - it's me making the arguments about speciesism.
I just checked the Dawkins forums. You're really good at explaining that in writing. You should search google news, etc., now and then to find stories on animal rights so you can add comments.
I don't know if this just isn't your style, but have you considered linking to websites like or just .
Also, did you see this spoof from The Onion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ7J7UjsRqg
That "Onion" piece is excellent.
I tried to link to this website, however, I don't think I set-up my profile correctly because my link never appears at the end of the comments. But I will work on it. The forum itself is very active, so I will continue to bring the issue up - as you will I'm sure.