Abolitionist Veganism

I'm sorry, I don't see this as an argument against incremental change. This achievemnt doesn't afford animals the full protection/rights that the campaigners likely hoped for. So this in itself is an incremental success of sorts - another stepping stone along the way to achieving even more.

Note that this was achieved by the German Greens Party - hardly an abolitionist animal rights group. In fact, not an animal rights group at all! (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/05/17/germany.animals/index.html)

I'm sure that all animal groups in Germany supported the amendment. And I'm equally sure that these groups will continue to campaign for greater protection/rights, but surely they will also celebrate this success! And yet often abolitionists argue that people working towards incremental change are 'compromising' by aiming for and celebrating achievements along the way.

Do you think that the campaigners behind this amendment pushed the government for total animal liberation and full rights for animals? I highly doubt this was their approach. Such a message would be dismissed outright. Instead they likely pushed for what they thought they could achieve and now they can set their sights higher... ie. incremental change

Francione has done a great job of re-framing the incremental approach in terms of welfare, therefore dismissing the idea that anyone who campaigns for incremental change is aiming for animal rights. He has framed the debate as 'animal rights through abolitionism' vs 'animal welfare'. This completely eliminates 'animal rights through incremental change' (such as what has been done in germany) as a possibility in the debate... a very convenient way to dismiss anyone who doesn't share his approach by calling them 'welfarist'... very divisive!

I think it's important to debate these ideas, but Fracione's approach is to destroy debate by dismissing other points of view as invalid and not aspiring to the same goals.

I would be very interested to hear Francione's perspective on the progress in Germany... I can't imagine that this small incremental achievement would live up to his 'no compromise till we have total animal liberation' approach.

I should add, that achieving legal rights is only part of the challenge. Equally important, if not more so is inspiring individuals to make compassionate choices for animals.

We all know someone who we suspect will never go vegan (if you don't, then you surround yourself with amazing people, or you're a better advocate than me!). And few of us went vegan in one step. So a 'no excuses, go vegan!' approach completely misses the opportunity to nudge in the right direction those not ready to go vegan and those who will not likely ever go vegan. I much prefer to encourage any choice that improves the lives of animals, whilst always highlighting that the best thing that anyone can do for animals is not eat them at all. This reaches all people who may be receptive to taking any small (or big) step for animals.

There is a real danger in seeing these issues in black and white. For starters, black and white approaches to any issue are what leads to dogmatism and idealogues rather than a rational basis for an approach. In addition, a black and white approach leads to a greater focus on personal purity and purity of the movement, rather than on what will help the most animals. Purity of oneself or the movement is not necessarily what is in the animals best interests. Take for example the fact that a vegan that concerns themself with every micro-ingredient makes veganism look very hard and discourages others from adopting that diet.. and in such a case the animals lose out

Much too much energy in our movement is expended on this debate! I appreciate that people have different perspectives, and applaud anyone who helps animals. Ultimately what we need is to get on with doing the job!

If people believe in abolitionism, then all power to them. I just hope they devote more of their time and energy to vegan outreach (such as uni leafleting) than they do to trying to convince other vegans that they should be abolitionists. There is no doubt in my mind which of these two pursuits saves more lives...

Welfare group admits welfare doesn't work, proposes more welfare to fix the problem

http://weotheranimals.blogspot.com/2009/11/welfare-group-admits-welfare-doesnt.html

Thanks for the link. I thought this was well put:
"I'm sure we can all agree that our foremost obligation is to animals, which means our energy is better spent understanding and persuading the population at large (our "target audience") rather than debating each other."

The full Gary Francione Vegan News interview now available: http://news.vegan.fm/?p=50

i think that's so true.

if you look at the history of civil and human rights movements, there have always been a vast assortment of different groups with minorly different end-game objectives. however, they've all shared a key goal of, for example, advancing the wellbeing of a minority group.

as long as we're all working for a better world for animals, regardless of whichever 'tag' we fall under, we're all still doing the right thing. and jesse was right earlier, far too much time is invested in this argument. we all just need to get out there ourselves and inform the public of what's happening. whether they go vegan immediatly, or just give up factory farmed food, it makes for a better life for the animals.

let the crux of the issue we concern ourselves with be the animals' wellbeing -- not the tag of the activist.

Yes, the German situation is not liberating animals, its welfare reform. Welfare’s expected from people who use animals, however when it’s promoted by people who profess to be animal rights advocates, it’s detrimental and it's not about tags at all.

I prepared an explanation which is part of a research essay I’m preparing on global sociology before I came back to post the link and found this link to animalemancipation above, which compliments my explanation.  This IS a critical debate which NEEDS to be discussed and understood by those of us who are enlightened enough to want/seek liberation, so we promote abolition/veganism and not waste resources on welfare  http://www.animalsadvoc8.info/b2/ please read.

Ok. I'm not an abolitionist (at least in the Francione sense of the term) and am unlikely to ever be swayed to that view point. But as I said before, the movement needs a broad range of approaches and I support anyone who campaigns for animals.

I think often this discussion seems to go round in circles over which approach will work. There are billions of animals that need our help right now! So I'm much more interested in pragmatics... ie. what can an individual do to help animals?

So if someone is an abolitionist, what practical activities can they undertake to have the greatest impact for animals? I believe that there are some very effective strategies that abolitionists, incrementalists and anyone else can undertake to help animals... amongst the most the most effective of these is vegan outreach (esp. leafleting at universities).

I'm keen to hear whether others agree and what other practical approaches to advocating for animals people might suggest.

Hi All,

I thought the aim of animal "rights" people is to *end* animal use, not reduce suffering. If we are focused on suffering and suffering only, we become welfare groups. Would we push for less suffering if this was about human children who are being abused and murdered? No, we would push for the end of their abuse and murder. If we are focused on suffering and not the end of use, there is speciesism behind this pursuance.

Veganism is the recognition of the moral personhood of nonhumans. So we should always advocate veganism to end animal use, not as a "tool" to reduce suffering, or a "personal choice". It is a moral imperative.