ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

[EcoTribalVegan]

Okay, first I'll start off by saying the topic title is perhaps a bit misleading. I hope to avoid, as much as is possible, the personal characteristics of these two people, but mostly their philosophies. Of course, their personal life can be seen as respective of their beliefs and how well they adhere to them.

First off, I would like to say I am a utilitarian. For those who have just taken Francione's definition of this, I am the school of Utilitarian that seeks to eliminate as much pain/discomfort for the most amount of sentient beings. I honestly believe that Francione is a utlitarian to, but fails to realise it because of his attempted exclusion from Singer. Afterall, he is seeking to eliminate the discomfort and pain of animals.

Having said this, to me, utilitarianism's end point would be something resembling Libertarian Egalitarianism. This would provide the least amount of pain and, consequently, probably the most amount of happiness. This would ultimately lead to Francione's theory of complete animal liberation as well.

I think people attack Utilitarianism because of Dr. Singer's particular branch of utilitarianism. As in the ARCO forum, where a similar discussion is currently taking place, Singer uses retrospection to make claims that some vivisection is justified. Of course this is only looking through hindsight. To me, as I said in the other forum, this wouldn't have even been allowed to begin with as it would be causing MORE pain to creatures unnecessarily. Therefore it's only justified AFTER the fact, and can never be justified DURING because it breaks utilitarian principles. And more often then not, vivisection is often futile, produces misleading results, or no results at all. This would NOT be a gamble I would take from my utilitarian stance.

Singer is slippery on the issue and I will admit that. And in his response he says, "Only if there is no other way." And there are other ways which makes vivisection doubly unjustified by utilitarian standards.

I think that is about as much as I will say on this issue for the moment. I no doubt have probably brought the ire of some. That's not my intent however. I think contentious issues SHOULD be brought into light (even though Francione eludes we should be careful bringing them up). Society hides these things under the veil of being taboo, and Francione seems to agree from his wording. Both individuals have their faults, but then nobody knows exactly how to achieve animal rights. It's a constantly evolving process. But as I said, I think it ultimately comes down to utilitarianism if you support animal rights.

[sheepdog]

seeks to eliminate as much pain/discomfort for the most amount of sentient beings.

The welfarist utilitarian seeks to minimize the pain that others experience. He can never fully succeed. He has an unachievable goal.

The Abolitionist utilitarian seeks to eliminate the harm that she may cause others. It is possible for her to eliminate all harm. She has a goal she may achieve and she may achieve it immediately, at any moment.

The welfarist utilitarian acts to change the lives of others.

The Abolitionist utilitarian acts to leave the lives of others free of the burden of her influence.

The welfarist utilitarian believes that animal rights will only be achieved through action by people like himself.

The Abolitionist utilitarian knows that animal rights must be actively repressed continuously, by people like herself, and will be achieved the moment when that active, persistent repression ceases.

[panthera]

seeks to eliminate as much pain/discomfort for the most amount of sentient beings.

The welfarist utilitarian seeks to minimize the pain that others experience. He can never fully succeed. He has an unachievable goal.

The Abolitionist utilitarian seeks to eliminate the harm that she may cause others. It is possible for her to eliminate all harm. She has a goal she may achieve and she may achieve it immediately, at any moment.

The welfarist utilitarian acts to change the lives of others.

The Abolitionist utilitarian acts to leave the lives of others free of the burden of her influence.

Beautifully articulated distinctions!

The welfarist utilitarian believes that animal rights will only be achieved through action by people like himself.

The Abolitionist utilitarian knows that animal rights must be actively repressed continuously, by people like herself, and will be achieved the moment when that active, persistent repression ceases.

This one I don't understand; please elaborate?

[EcoTribalVegan]

seeks to eliminate as much pain/discomfort for the most amount of sentient beings.

The welfarist utilitarian seeks to minimize the pain that others experience. He can never fully succeed. He has an unachievable goal.

The Abolitionist utilitarian seeks to eliminate the harm that she may cause others. It is possible for her to eliminate all harm. She has a goal she may achieve and she may achieve it immediately, at any moment.

The welfarist utilitarian acts to change the lives of others.

The Abolitionist utilitarian acts to leave the lives of others free of the burden of her influence.

The welfarist utilitarian believes that animal rights will only be achieved through action by people like himself.

The Abolitionist utilitarian knows that animal rights must be actively repressed continuously, by people like herself, and will be achieved the moment when that active, persistent repression ceases.

A welfarist utilitarian in my mind isn't a true utilitarian or a different branch of utilitarian I am unfamiliar with. Because I agree fully with your statements of abolitionist utilitarians.

But that's mostly what I'm getting at, just because Singer is a mistaken individual (even though he has done much to raise awareness of animal liberation), doesn't mean we should automatically throw utilitarianism out.

[sheepdog]

The welfarist utilitarian believes that animal rights will only be achieved through action by people like himself.

The Abolitionist utilitarian knows that animal rights must be actively repressed continuously, by people like herself, and will be achieved the moment when that active, persistent repression ceases.

This one I don't understand; please elaborate?

The welfarist utilitarian believes that there is action he must do for animals to enjoy rights.

The Abolitionist utilitarian know that animals have perfect enjoyment of rights so long as we do not deny them by our actions.

The welfarist utilitarian believes that the world is made better by his intervention.

The Abolitionist utilitarian understands that the world can only be damaged by our meddling.

The welfarist utilitarian believes that the status of animals must be changed by people like himself for them to achieve rights.

The Abolitionist utilitarian knows that the animals, before there were people, enjoyed an ideal status in rights, and that the only reason that they do not enjoy their rights now is because their status has been changed by people like herself.

The welfarist utilitarian wants to see the world changed by himself and people like himself.

The Abolitionist utilitarian desires the world to be as it would be were it not for her changes, and changes made by people like herself.

[sheepdog]

First off, I would like to say I am a utilitarian. For those who have just taken Francione's definition of this, I am the school of Utilitarian that seeks to eliminate as much pain/discomfort for the most amount of sentient beings.

I respectfully suggest that you rethink this point of view. I don't believe you really mean what you say here.

Animals, including people, have a right to their pain as much as to their pleasures. It isn't for you and I to say how much pain another should have.

What I believe you mean is that you seek to eliminate all unnecessary harm done to others. How much pain they may or may not experience when no harm has been done to them, is an entirely different issue.

You can eliminate the harm that you do. You cannot eliminate the pain that another experiences. To say that you seek to minimize the amount of pain is to imply that you believe that they must experience some pain, and you will be the judge as to how much is enough in your pursuit of your goal. That idea is blatantly welfarist, and certainly is the basis for justifications for vivisection. It is by setting an unachievable ideal that welfarists can justify any degree of barbarity. This is another of the many ways they frame the debate to cook the conclusions.

But we cannot hide from the harm that we do unnecessarily. In that responsibility is solely and undeniably ours.

[panthera]

Animals, including people, have a right to their pain as much as to their pleasures. It isn't for you and I to say how much pain another should have.

This to me is part of respect for another; it's patronizing to say, I will protect you from all harm. That would impinge on their autonomy.

[EcoTribalVegan]

First off, I would like to say I am a utilitarian. For those who have just taken Francione's definition of this, I am the school of Utilitarian that seeks to eliminate as much pain/discomfort for the most amount of sentient beings.

I respectfully suggest that you rethink this point of view. I don't believe you really mean what you say here.

Animals, including people, have a right to their pain as much as to their pleasures. It isn't for you and I to say how much pain another should have.

What I believe you mean is that you seek to eliminate all unnecessary harm done to others. How much pain they may or may not experience when no harm has been done to them, is an entirely different issue.

I thought this was implied. Of course I can't protect every animal against every harm, only intentional harm from myself; and to the best of my ability, intentional harm from others.

But I don't think any animal (except perhaps humans with fetishes) even like pain to begin with.

You can eliminate the harm that you do. You cannot eliminate the pain that another experiences. To say that you seek to minimize the amount of pain is to imply that you believe that they must experience some pain, and you will be the judge as to how much is enough in your pursuit of your goal. That idea is blatantly welfarist, and certainly is the basis for justifications for vivisection. It is by setting an unachievable ideal that welfarists can justify any degree of barbarity. This is another of the many ways they frame the debate to cook the conclusions.

But we cannot hide from the harm that we do unnecessarily. In that responsibility is solely and undeniably ours.

And if I can get that pain to none, that's the ultimate goal. Nowhere did I mean to imply, or did I imply, that animals SHOULD feel some pain. Of course pain is pretty much an inevitability as you say. I've been thinking about this recently; life is pretty much pain. Why cause even MORE intentional pain than already exists.

Exactly, it is welfarist to say that things SHOULD feel a level of intentional pain. I didn't say this!

[EcoTribalVegan]

Animals, including people, have a right to their pain as much as to their pleasures. It isn't for you and I to say how much pain another should have.

This to me is part of respect for another; it's patronizing to say, I will protect you from all harm. That would impinge on their autonomy.

It's not patronising, it's the natural way of life. No species (save for humans) goes OUT of their way to cause pain unless it's self-preservation. The only pain I ever implied to be stopping was intentional human-made pain, which is far from a necessity and, as Singer states, is only to satisfy the palate.

P.S. This is to both sheepdog and panthera: I would just like to add, you seem to have taken a quote out of context to slander utilitarianism (much the same that seems to be happening when discussing Singer). I went on to state that the ultimate goal would be to liberate all animals [from human involvement].

[sheepdog]

Animals, including people, have a right to their pain as much as to their pleasures. It isn't for you and I to say how much pain another should have.

This to me is part of respect for another; it's patronizing to say, I will protect you from all harm. That would impinge on their autonomy.

Exactly. It is quite enough to say, "I will not do harm to you." To say, I will protect you from harm has the equivalent problem of saying, I will try to minimize your pain, not the least of which is that it is simply unrealistic. And by being unrealistic it is designed to fail. And by failing to result in change, the status quo, which is welfarism, is thereby sustained. Change must be achieved by change actually occurring -- successfully.

EcoTribalVegan: I am not accusing you of saying this. But I am exploring the meaning of the words you write.