Is the Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Obstructionist to Animal Progress?

Is abolition the path to removal of animals from our world?

"Is the abolitionist approach to Animal Rights obstructionist to animal progress?"

.

The above is a question I have grappled with for some time, particularly as it regards the local controversy in New York City on carriage horses, but also on wider and more global scale.

.

What is the Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights?

.

It is the basic philosophy that it is, "immoral" to eat, wear or use animals in any way and that "domestication of animals is inherently wrong and we should stop producing domesticated animals for human use."

.

 http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/single-issue-campaigns-and-the-adoptionfostering-of-homeless-nonhuman-animals/#.VMP6zCvztvF

.

The above quotes are from Rutgers Law Professor and noted Animal Rights author, Gary Francione and derived from his Abolitionist Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach

.

Not all Animal Rights advocates subscribe to all or most of this philosophical position, but many do -- even if not directly and openly expressed.

.

For example, the campaign to ban carriage horses in New York City is an "abolitionist" position as opposed to extolling the virtues and reciprocal benefits of engagement with horses or advocating for better conditions for them. One suspects that even were spaces allotted  in Central Park for horses to graze upon or all traffic challenges ameliorated, the activists would bitterly oppose any amenities by referring to them as,"obstructionist" (i.e. "happy exploitation") to the primary goal of an outright ban.

.

Put simply, there is no room for negotiation, evolvement or positive change when the base line is that the animals are nothing beyond "horse slaves" -- they are to be pitied rather than revered and they should be removed from New York City and society at large.   

.

With that in mind, could it not thus be argued that the abolitionist position on carriage horses diminishes them and is in fact, obstructionist to any actual progress for these animals other than complete elimination of them from our midst?

.

And, on wider consideration of the abolitionist philosophy of elimination of domesticated animals from our world, is such to the ultimate benefit of the animals or to their detriment? 

.

Should extinction ever be the goal of Animal Rights?

.

Or, is the goal rather to have domesticated animals only on sanctuaries or as adornments on estates of the very wealthy? But, doesn't the former ultimately become a situation like zoos --something most AR activists oppose? And isn't the latter elitist and dismissive of animals' rights to have purpose and role in life?

.

A couple of days ago, I lamented that even though overall meat consumption has dropped considerably in the United States over the past three decades (due to greater public awareness of animal suffering, health, environment and availability of alternatives), farm animals are still exempted from basic and minimal protections under the federal Animal Welfare Act. (Additionally, all birds and rabbits are exempted from protections under the Humane Slaughter Act -- even though they represent by far, the bulk of animals slaughtered for meat.)  

.

Since these laws were enacted decades ago and are open to amendment, one has to wonder why that is?  Why has there been no significant and national movement to include legal protections for the animals most abused for meat, even with the drop in meat consumption and rise in both, veganism and vegetarianism? Should not these positive developments make it easier to finally pass meaningful legislation to protect the most expolited animals in our country -- so called, "food animals?"

.

Apparently not.

.

The "no use" wing of the Animal Rights movement appears not so interested in new "welfare" legislation to improve the lives of animals as much as it seeks some utopian world where no animal "suffers" or in way, directly engages with or is used by humans. (The exception according to Francione and others are those domesticated  animals rescued and cared for by humans, but prevented from breeding. Such animals would eventually become "extinct through attrition when existing ones die off.")

.

Thus, the base mantra and perfect world of Francione, PETA and others of the "no use" fringe of Animal Rights is that, "Animals should only be enjoyed from a distance."  Rescuing animals is OK, but "ownership" is not.  Ownership is rather, akin to "enslavement."

.

Personally speaking, I have numerous problems with this philosophy.

.

For one matter, it completely discounts some animals' choices to freely engage with humans and in many cases, actually work with humans in reciprocal partnerships, and even love humans. This is particularly true of horses and dogs -- animals long domesticated by humans over many thousands of years and significant to advances in civilization.

.

Is a dogless or horseless world truly something to aspire to?

.

While many Animal Rights activists (including Francione) readily acknowledge and seemingly appreciate the love that animals and humans frequently share, they would just as soon deny future generations of the experience of such love in their quest to ultimately end all human/animal "use" and connection.

.

What about the other domesticated animals -- particularly those exploited for meat?

.

While pigs and rabbits might be capable of existing in the wild (i.e. "free") it is less clear that cows, sheep and chickens would have an easy time of it. -- Especially animals who have been so genetically altered over the decades, as to have lost basically all of their wild instincts and physical attributes for wild survival.  These animals would also eventually (or nearly) perish from the earth in a totally vegan world. -- Put simply, eliminate all purpose and "use" for existence of domesticated animals and eventually we eliminate the animals.

.

Presumably, we would then only be left with wild animals to "admire from a distance."

.

But, don't wild animals suffer too?

.

When eliminating all domesticated animals, would it then be PETA's goal to "euthanize" all wild animals to "free" them from any suffering or the likelihood of an eventual gruesome death? Where exactly does this, "no use" and "no suffering" Utopian world lead? What is its end goal?  -- A world with no animals at all?

.

In criticizing and opposing any and all animal protective attempts to improve the lives and welfare of farm and other human-used animals, Gary Francione argues, "Yes, it is better not to torture someone that you murder. But that does not make torture-free murder humane. It's better not to beat someone you rape. But, that doesn't make rape without beating compassionate."   http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/aa_positionpaper_animalwelfare.pdf

.

While making a valid point that crimes are still crimes, whether or not there are aggravating circumstances, the author appears to lose sight of the feelings of crime victims (whether human or animal).

.

As one who was raped as a child, I am gratified not to have also been beaten.

.

I was also mugged and robbed three times as an adult. But, when considering I might have also been raped or beaten to point of severe injury (or even murder), it is relief to not have also experienced those crimes.

.

So, for the animals, is it not necessary to fight for whatever reforms or lessoning of suffering and violence can be achieved?

.

Currently, in the United States, a million chickens are boiled alive every year, for not being properly stunned and slaughtered before being dipped into scalding tanks.

.

And yet, apparently people like Professor Francione would oppose any legislation or amendment that would mandate the humane slaughter of chickens as it would be perceived as "welfarist" or "happy exploitation." 

.

It's too bad we can't ask the chickens how they feel. One supposes that as humans, if we knew we were about to be murdered, we would choose being shot or at least stunned before being boiled alive.

.

Professor Francione's justification for opposing any and all improvements in the treatment of food animals is that such reforms result in people eating more of the product due to complacency and comfort.  That may be true in some cases, but human behavior is predicated mostly on ritual. Thus, it is unlikely a person is going to eat more meat or consume more dairy because of the claim of, "humanely raised."  They may however, feel less guilty about what they do consume. 

.

While such might impede Francione's and other vegan activists goals for a totally vegan, non-animal-use world, it is highly debatable that such world will ever achieve fruition in the first place.

.

The reality is that guilt alone is usually not enough to compel most people to give up set rituals and moral beliefs -- especially those established in early childhood such as the societal acceptance and "morality" of meat-eating.  

.

If such base and radical changes are to occur at all, they are usually achieved in small and "feel good" increments -- i.e. "meatless Mondays" for example and then expansion -- especially when easy and similar alternatives/replacements are available. (In my own case, I gave up all meat and fish nearly 40 years ago, not because of guilt or belief that meat and fish were "immoral" but because I couldn't justify paying others to do what I was personally repulsed by -- killing animals.) 

.

While some people may be persuaded to give up all animal products on the basis of guilt or some personal and sudden moral revulsion or "epiphany," most people simply tend to avoid thinking about that which makes them feel guilty or uncomfortable. Denial and avoidance are powerful influences on human behavior.

.

Put simply, humans (and animals) generally gravitate towards those matters and behaviors that make them feel good, not towards that which makes them feel guilty, "immoral" or uncomfortable.  If anything, people more readily adapt morality to fit behavior, rather than the other way around.

.

But, unfortunately, a significant portion of the modern Animal Rights movement has become all about preaching "morality" and attempts at guilt-tripping even benign animal-using activities, such as horse carriage rides.

.

How exactly does all this proselytizing and "holier than thou" morality judgments help any animals? How does referring to people taking horse carriage rides as "rubes, yokels and bumpkins" inspire them to consider seriously, the legitimate arguments for animal rights, respect and protection?

.

Wouldn't carriage horses benefit more from efforts to uplift and extol their place, beauty, value, contributions and enhancement to New York City, rather than efforts to diminish, tear down and "banish" them?

.

How sad and actually contrary to animal empathy and respect is it to secretly hope for some accident to a carriage horse or even further atrocity done to food animals in order to attract further support for one's cause to remove animals from the human world?

.

To openly oppose any and all reforms or attempts to improve the current lot for animals in favor of crusading for some Utopian world where no animal ever suffers "use" at the hands of humans is to render to zero, the significance of animals existing now.

.

It's akin to saying, "I'm not going to provide sustenance and comfort for my children now because I am waiting for the day I hit the lottery and can provide them with mansions and caviar." Or, on another level, "Human children should not be in custody of and beholden to or controlled by parents. They should be free to pursue their own interests."

.

Actual reality is that some suffering and even at times, injustice is part of every human's and animal's life experience. Our true moral quest as humans is to lesson that suffering and those injustices as much and wherever possible and to embrace kindness. Human welfare and animal welfare are closely related and similar in pursuit and hopefully, goal. Even the Bill of (human) Rights, doesn't guarantee happiness for all humans -- only the pursuit of it.

.

Elimination of all suffering (whether human or animal) will only occur with the end of all life on earth.

.

Thus, I believe that although the "Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights" may look good on paper or sound good in the halls of prestigious universities, it is actually obstructionist to true progress for animals in the real world of absurdity, unequal justice and evolvement in increments. --PCA

.

.

.

                                                     ------------