Article by Dan Cudahy about why people fail to see that using animals is wrong:

http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/search/label/in-groups%20and%...roups

** Going vegan is not the most we can do, but the least we can do.**  Dan Cudahy

Agreed, and that is obviously what we are all aiming for, but I didn't particularly like his condescending style of writing.

What I would like to ask Dan Cudahy is, how does he propose to turn the other, let's just call it 95% of the population for the moment (and I realise that is probably being way too conservative) into vegans?  I can't see it happening tomorrow, next week or even next year, can you?   We're making very slow headway despite many organisations world-wide working their butts off for - decades? Centuries?  How does he propose to turn the people who don't give a stuff about animals into vegans unless the price of meat, dairy and eggs soars to out of the average family"s reach?  Or the governments of the day ban rearing animals for food?  That is not likely to happen any time soon either.

Meanwhile what happens to all the animals in battery cages, stalls and feedlots?  We "compassionate and kind vegans" hate to see animals not only killed and consumed, but also living a life of sheer misery until they meet their death.  So what do for we do for these creatures in the next few decades or centuries while we convince the remaining 95% of animal users that what they are doing is wrong?

Apparently, by campaigning to get birds out of cages and barns, pigs out of stalls or small pens, and cattle out of feedlots - which, in improving their living conditions a little, also raises the price considerably, is seen by some to be condoning what they are actually being reared for.  Doesn't it stand to reason that in so doing, the price rises  and these animals could be removed from some people's plates altogether?

I realise I am  not educated and not all that bright - and this should probably have been posted on another thread - but I find it reprehensible that so-called loving, caring & compassionate vegans would object to fighting for better conditions for the animals while we continue to work to convince the other 95% not to eat or use them at all.

Anybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve. You don't have to know about Plato and Aristotle to serve. You don't have to know Einstein's theory of relativity to serve. You don't have to know the second theory of thermodynamics to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. Martin Luther King Jr

Hi DH, i've mentioned your response to Dan, so he'll answer what you asked in person.

He doesn't have access to a computer at the moment, though, so he'll reply in 2 or 3 days.

I won't try to answer on his behalf, but here's my response: abolition won't turn 95% of people into vegans by next year, but neither will the welfare approach.

The abolitionist view is that by cooperating with animal industries to make them more ''humane'', you perpetuate them. So while you may improve conditions, the base condition of animals as property remains unaffected, and may stay around longer.

While we've certainly seen improvements in conditions over the years, has this translated into less use of animals globally? Abolitionists argue that while we improve conditions, more animals get exploited.

What if all the vegans concerned with animals, instead of putting effort into welfare reform, were clear in saying animal use is unacceptable?

Welfare organisations like the RSPCA would still continue their work anyway, but now their would be a stronger, clearer voice saying that using animals is wrong.

Here's something about continuing slavery in the British colonies. It suggests the tactics of the slavers were to draw out reforms, so that no actual abolition took place:

The West India Lobby used very similar tactics to the anti-slavery lobby... They wrote pamphlets and other literature arguing that the Slave Trade was necessary and, in fact, beneficial to the Africans. They lobbied parliament and produced witnesses to testify to parliament. They had the power and wealth to buy votes and exert pressure on others.

They also used delaying tactics, for example, suggesting the need for further time or investigation, before consideration of the issue by the House, or supporting compromise solutions. On April 2nd 1792, when Wilberforce again brought a bill calling for abolition, Henry Dundas, as home secretary, proposed a compromise solution of ‘gradual abolition' over a number of years. Although this was passed by 230 to 85 votes, the compromise was seen as little more than a clever ploy by the pro-slavery lobby. Gradual, in their view, meant never.

Another response to attacks by the anti slavery lobby was to show themselves as reformers, by revising slave codes and offering improvements to conditions. In 1823, for example, pressure for total abolition saw the Government outline a reform programme, drawn up in close consultation with the committee of West Indian Planters and Merchants, known as ‘the amelioration programme'. The committee was chaired by an influential absentee plantation owner, Charles Ellis.

The programme involved revising the laws which regulated the number of hours enslaved people could work and the food they were provided with. It gave enslaved people basic legal rights, including the right to own property, and also provided for religious instruction. The idea was for a legally-regulated abolition of slave status, over an unspecified time period. Although the programme led to some improvements in conditions, by the early 1830's, many had still not implemented these changes.

http://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_110.html

Welfarist don't necessarily not want abolition the difference is Welfairist understand the current state of mind of their fellow humans.

Statements that lead inferring slaughtering a animal is like rape or pedophilia prove most abolitionist are completely out of touch with the general public and are missing a important step in their campaign, The First Step, which includes communicating things such as "We don't need animal products" and "animals are more like us than they are different"....

What we will end up with by leading with the Gary Francione abolitionist approach is righteous nobility but with 100% failure.

The failure starts in the article posted is in the paragraph "and many of them are perfectly fine with slaughtering animals. So how do we explain the apparent contradiction? How do such kind and gentle people ignore the violence on their plate?"
When Dan acts all confused he is making the mistake himself by assuming the meaning of the word violence is not only valid for humans to that meat eater.

Wheter this approach is called bad manners or social ineptness the result is the issue, and the result I have only witnessed is failure. Even Dan confessed his failure in this instance.

If someone can give me an example where calling someone who is eating a hamburger is no better than a part time pedophile caused them to become vegan I will adjust my 100% failure figure.

As I have said before I don't have a problem with the goal but have grave concerns about mimicking Gary Francione.

I disagree that keeping animals "enslaved" and denying them a better life is going to change the average person's view that it is okay to eat them or the products they produce.  I know the argument is that if the guilt is lifted from the consumer's shoulders if the animals are given a better life and are killed "humanely" they won't respond to the idea that to eat animals is wrong.  I still want to know the number of just average consumers that the Abolitionists have converted with their approach.  

Animals have been imprisoned and tortured then killed for - what? - 50 years? - since factory farming was introduced.  The guilt of treating other sentient creatures in this completely abhorrent manner hasn't sent all the "animal lovers" headlong into veganism - so what hope for converting those who don't give a damn about how they are treated?  I rather suspect that most of the abolitionists don't mix/deal with the general public very much - but are holed up in their little ivory towers with their theories and very rarely get out to put their grand ideas into practice.

It's all very well to gather a little elitist band of already converted vegans around them, but ask each one of them just how they arrived at their veganism and it might be a bit of an eye-opener.

After getting home yesterday, I had a call from a young woman who has been a vegetarian for 6 years.  She has an Acquired Brain Injury.  She had rung to join the Society after talking with one of our committee blokes going home in the train a couple of weeks ago.  She asked if she, as a vegetarian, could come to the pot luck lunch next week.  I said she would be most welcome but she would need to make sure that the food she brought was vegan.  I then asked her if she had considered becoming vegan because...., but I didn't get any further as I could "hear" her tense up on the phone, and she said "I know I should be vegan but I am quite happy being vegetarian.  I love dairy too much and really love my yoghurt.  I don't want to be vegan."  I could have pursued the conversation by taking a different approach, but I had another committee bloke waiting for some information and decided that, at the moment, I wasn't going to make any headway by pushing her - in fact we would probably have lost any further opportunity to talk to her at all if she felt she was being cornered.  I will send her some info and hopefully continue the conversation face to face at the lunch.  How would Eckto and Dan Cudahy have handled this situation?  I rather suspect they'd have chased her away - never to be seen again.

DH, good points. I wonder if we cannot praise vegetarians for their commitment and sympathise with how hard it is to give up dairy...but, like we ask meat eaters to have one meat free day, with vegetarians ask to reduce the amount of dairy they consume in a week. Its a start and it's in the right direction. I am sure many here have already done this, but someone like that woman might possibly not have thought of this.

Good point Noosagranny, the advantage of trialing one day a week is people can see first hand how easy something is.

That would be one of many well mannered ways to progress things.

Hello everyone,

Veb invited me to comment in this thread, so here I am. :-)

First, in reading the comments so far, I see some misunderstanding of the way abolitionists engage in vegan education and relate to people who may not be receptive to it.  As far as I know, we are as courteous as anyone else who is trying to persuade someone to go vegan; sometimes more, sometimes less, depending on the personality of the individual.  The abolitionist approach entails creative, nonviolent vegan education, and the nonviolent part should include speech.  Also, although a disproportionate number of abolitionists have strong academic backgrounds in philosophy, law, and sociology, all of us do live in the real world and most, if not all, participate in daily vegan education. If anything, the strong academic backgrounds might be a hint that serious and prolonged thought by people formally trained in analysis has gone into critically evaluating the abolitionist approach before accepting it.  Strong backgrounds in collecting donor money, which is common with groups like PETA, might give a hint that the welfare reform business-cycle is just like any other self-protective industry.

The way I, Gary Francione, and most abolitionists I know approach nonvegans is gently, fully understanding that they believe consuming animal products is as natural and normal as breathing air or drinking water.  I, or abolitionists in general, don’t walk up to people and call them a bigot or a Nazi as has been implied in this thread.  I do write articles like the one linked in this forum that attempt to provoke serious thought and wake people up.  I’m sorry if anyone finds such writing ‘condescending’; it is not intended that way.  I don’t know how many people I have influenced to go vegan, and unfortunately, I think any given person or group’s influence is not even close to quantifiable.  My guess is that I’m about as influential as the average vegan – abolitionist or not – on this forum when engaging in vegan education because, at that point, we’re both doing the same basic thing – trying to get someone to go vegan.

The abolitionist critique of welfarism (new or traditional) is NOT that vegan new welfarists aren’t doing any vegan education (and therefore doing everything wrong).  The abolitionist critique is that welfarism – focusing on improving treatment – does *nothing* to shift the paradigm of animals as commodities (in fact, it reinforces that paradigm) nor does it get people to go vegan.  The “animal movement” pours hundreds of millions of dollars into fighting industry at its strong points (welfare laws and regulations) that could be directed to polite, creative, non-violent vegan education.  Abolitionists want vegans, who make up an extremely small percentage of the population, to focus all our resources on creating more vegans, which is the only realistic long-term way to obtain real protection for nonhumans.  Welfarism will never go away as long as there are people who consume animal products, and abolitionists completely realize that. We are trying to get more vegans to focus their time, efforts, and money on polite, creative, nonviolent vegan education.  And what is wrong about that?  Can you imagine how beneficial it would be to see large, well-funded, and well-known “Go Vegan” campaigns that taught people why and how to go vegan?  That’s exactly what abolitionists envision someday as our interim goal: huge “Go Vegan” campaigns.

If you would like to learn more about the abolitionist approach, including some of the deeper philosophical differences between abolitionists and welfarists (new or traditional), please at least regularly read Gary Francione’s blog (and go back for some reading of past posts). Preferably, also read my blog, especially the essays under the “abolition” and related labels.  And most preferably, read Gary Francione’s books: Animals as Persons, Rain Without Thunder, and Introduction to Animal Rights. One of two things will happen if you read enough good abolitionist writing: either you’ll agree and “go abolitionist” and be glad you did, or at least you’ll have much better arguments against why the abolitionist approach is misguided.  Either way, you win.

Since I've written extensively about abolitionism on my blog, I do not intend to debate the merits abolitionist approach here, so I won’t comment further other than to clarify things, if appropriate, or answer questions asked in good faith.  I wish all of you the best.

Abolitionism is all well and good in theory, but you are assuming that equality and freedom exists within our own species to make your point for animals. Clearly, that is far from reality.

My own educated, strongly academically grounded opinion (which incidentally, is also not one borrowed from anyone else) is that until we see fairness, equality, and freedom demonstrated in human society, there is NO hope for achieving this for non-human animals. How can human society, on the whole, be convinced of a radical abolitionist agenda for animals when we can't even protect or advocate, (or even tolerate, in some instances) equal and fair treatment of our own species??

So, putting the pipe dream of abolitionism aside, until this sad earth of ours has reached a point of social maturation that is actually ready for this approach, I believe that all efforts possible should be directed into reducing the suffering of the billions and billions of animals in the real and present world. The suffering of these animals is real and it is happening as we speak. These animals are not some academic pawns to be used for the demonstration that suffering exists and then tossed aside and ignored in favour of the "greater shining ideal".

I firmly believe through observation of my own and others personal efforts that a welfarist approach that is grounded on vegan ideals is the only practical mass approach for today's present social climate. Please note, I say grounded in vegan ideals.

The abolitionist approach, as advocated by people such as Francione, for example, is to me, an approach that throws the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. It's too radical for most people to even comprehend and is interpreted as being very condescending by other vegans, vegetarians and non-vegetarians. No war for justice was ever won by creating an exclusionary state of communications. Unfortunately, hard-line abolitionist arguments do seem to create this moral boundary that forces people to be judged on one side or the other. The other failure of the abolitionist argument is that it presumes it is the perfect answer, when indeed, it may not be. There is a massive problem with putting veganism on a pedestal as a model for perfectly humane and moral human living. It simply isn't so, and is unlikely to be at any time, due to the human propensity for the selective exploitation of resources and the accompanying justification of same. I cannot and will not accept any purist argument from any abolitionist who uses a car, computer or lives with any of the cons of modern society. It is duplicitous in the making and cannot be respected.

Dan, you make a well-formed argument and at least you seem to have your own opinion. Congratulations. I wish some other posters had the guts to actually say what they think instead of quoting other people ad nauseum and providing dandy links that seem simply intended to stir the pot.

Anyhow, I just wish people would spend less time arguing the finer conversational points of veganism and just get off their butts and do something real. Living in the real world and demonstrating veganism in a tangible way without judging or trying to "convert" is the best way to normalise the vegan lifestyle and integrate it into society. Abolitionist approaches segregate. They may *feel* like the better approach for the deliverer (a great way to try and expunge all that guilt from a lifetime of omnivorism before "conversion"), but I seriously doubt they achieve much beyond that.

Anyhow, I am generally abused for daring to  comment on one of these kinds of threads, given my "unvegan" handle and my own firm opinions, so will go off and get on with my real work on human-animal relations.

I will comment on "I think any given person or group’s influence is not even close to quantifiable."
I find this a rather disappointing statement from an academic. Even a layperson would know you simply have to ask people what influenced them.

I have not done extensive surveys but I have directed an Omnivore acquaintance to the frontline abolitionist site and they came back to me in 30 seconds and said "I hate people that treat people as equal to animals"

There is already many hundreds of hits on this thread and I have not seen any vegan pop in and say I was not a morally meaningless vegetarian first and I went straight to veganism because of what Gary said.


Cerberus I don't expect you will get abused, I am sure all the Vegans realize that your motives are to make us all more effective and are purely driven by compassion. I couldn't imagine a single Vegan would worry about their ego at the expense of countless suffering animals. I am sure this debate will end in a sensible outcome with the interests of the animals and their environment paramount.

ZZ, I think you've nailed it by pointing to this fundamental difference in way of thinking: that the majority of humans do not see that animals, regardless of sentience or intelligence or emotionality etc. are to have equal rights with humans. These same people are more inclined to be influenced by welfarist arguments than abolitionist arguments. So while abolitionism was finally achievable for humans (abolishing slavery), it seems that this possibly unbridgable gap between human and non human species may be too much for abolitionists to get most people to cross...yes we can perhaps get more people across, but not most of the world. Those of us able to cross this bridge do so because we see life as a continuum, but most of the world does not...humans while admittedly are animals, are seen as the most important, and animals are not, and are treated as commodities as a result.

I truly believe that in our lifetime the best we can hope for is a significant increase in vegetarianism, and hopefully better treatment of our fellow animals. We can only do our best as vegans to set examples, to influence, and to raise consciousness.
I believe the abolitionist argument is logically correct, but I don't believe that logic is going to influence most meat eaters, and on this score I'd agree with Cerberus that it is possibly a losing battle
and so getting rid of welfarism is not the place to put one's energies.

I don't want to come off as an optimist, because I'm far from it, but if we compare attitudes and beliefs about religion and its relationship with science, slavery, patriarchy, and other beliefs of decades or centuries before us, we see some drastic changes. I'm sure it was difficult  to see how slaves and women in the 18th century would ever obtain any freedom, much less the right to vote along side propertied white males, but it happened. Welfarism has been going on for 200 years and we raise and slaughter more sentient nonhumans in more cruel ways every year. There has never been a viable abolitionist movement (and there still isn't one). An abolitionist movement may or may not fail if it ever even starts, but welfarism has been proven to be an abject failure for 200 years since Bentham first laid the philosophical foundation of utilitarian animal welfare.

As for quantifying the influence of groups and individuals, it is extremely difficult even with the large groups and prominent individuals (eg Singer, Francione, Regan). This is largely due to finding enough vegans (a scarce population embedded in a massive nonvegan population) and getting an unbiased sample. The best one might do is to be able to rank certain individuals (this has already been done, and Francione comes out high on the list [higher than Singer, for example], probably because others are more popular with lacto-ovo vegetarians and 'happy meat' consumers).

Finally, I'm not an academic, although I do read a lot of acedemic material in many different subjects.

Dan, just because there has been welfarism at the same time as an increase in commodification of animals does not mean there is a causative connection. The welfarists during the time of slavery did not cause an increase in slavery. So there is an error in logic going on there if that is implied. If OTOH you are just saying that welfarism does not prevent the increase in commodification, then yes. I think we all see the analogy with human slavery, women's rights etc. and agree with it. But I still see a larger gap to cross with the human-non human issue (speciesism) than with the human races or male vs female issues. I hope I am wrong and you are right in your optimism. Still, I agree with the logic that promoting better cages is a tacit agreement that it is OK for them to be there at all, and then there is what Cerberus said which is also true...

noosagranny, thanks for pointing out the relative vs causative relationship between the occurrences of animal use there. It is more likely that an increase in population together with the adoption of more frequent meat-eating (as a desirable "Western" custom) has been responsible for the increase in animal industries. I see welfarism as the "conscience", if you like, that has grown alongside the increase.

You raise an interesting point, being: "I agree with the logic that promoting better cages is a tacit agreement that it is OK for them to be there at all" and wholeheartedly agree. However, I do not consider that to be "welfarism" in essence. I see that as an industrial conspiracy to avoid change and give lip-service to animal welfare groups while not providing any real reduction in suffering at all. My definition of welfarism (as used in my arguments) constitutes real changes that reduce suffering and improve consumer consciousness, such as a ban on caged and barn-laid eggs in favour of free-range only. And, I mean real free-range, not the masquerade that some egg producers claim is free-range. But really, it's the legislation that is at fault there, so changes in legislation are paramount.  Consumer demand will also play a part in this, and this is where education practices come in. Research that progresses the chance of accurate sexing of eggs or ova is also something I consider to be an important welfare initiative that will reduce massive amounts of unnecessary suffering.

I am not sure if people realise this, but human slavery and oppression has not been abolished. It is alive and well. It has only been (mostly) abolished in our nice rosy wealthy western cultures. We still have women in the world who are so oppressed and victimised that they prefer to set themselves on fire than continue to suffer the habitual abuse of their husbands and their societal laws. Children work as slaves in third world countries and are recruited into the army to kill people as disposable commodities. Girls in many parts of Asia are sold as sex slaves or simply killed or abandoned at birth, just for being female. And here we are, naively thinking that non-human animals are suddenly going to be granted equal consideration as the result of an abolitionist approach.

Sorry to be so negative, but that is the reality of this world we live in. That we even have the welfare standards that are in place at the moment is astoundingly positive in light of the big picture. Rather than criticise, wouldn't it be better to build on what has been achieved and strive for better? We also need to ask ourselves what is the best route to achieving that? Abolition has not even been successful for humans yet.

Cerberus, yes, the version of welfarism you espouse I agree with entirely and share your cynicism regarding the strides humanity has made in its ethos...but...
lets not totally discount the advances made in the last century in our western culture with re to women's suffrage, and abolition of slavery. The USA that had apartheid in certain cities only 40 years ago now has managed to greatly reduce the racism, but obviously not obliterate it as seen by nasty anti-Obama campaigns.

Just consider the rapid changes that have been made in China in the past 20 years...it is astounding. So the half-full folks live in hope for animal rights...

we don’t even have to look outside our own country to see examples where society turns a blind eye to human suffering … our treatment of our indigenous community is a sad testament to the value that we place on some human life

In thinking about the abolitionist approach a few questions come to mind:

(1) how long will it take to double then treble the number of vegans to make a substantial voting block able to influence law makers?

(2) what would be the required % of vegans in the population to push through laws closing down the factory farming of animals for food?

(3) what happens to the welfare of the animals involved in factory farming in the meantime?

like all other vegans I would prefer to live in society when the rights of animals were protected

we are such a small percentage of society that if we start to build walls and adopt an elitist and separatist approach then I believe we run the risk of dividing the vegan movement and weakening its impact to make change

I am keen to understand how I can achieve maximum results for the effort I put into activism … I would therefore welcome practical ideas that I can introduce into my activism to get the best bang for the buck

I am finding that the environment argument is working the best in getting people to cut down on meat, followed by the health argument to a degree...the ethical argument seems to drive some people away as it is so guilt engendering and lots of people either don't want to feel the guilt or else don't really care. Sad. But at the same time I am starting to notice more vegan and vegetarian recipes popping up on the internet, more pushing by doctors for people to consume more fruit and veg, more towns starting to look at meatless days...so I think a quiet change is occurring, very slow but sure.

I see the following quote in Dan C’s post:

“although a disproportionate number of abolitionists have strong academic backgrounds in philosophy, law, and sociology, all of us do live in the real world and most, if not all, participate in daily vegan education. If anything, the strong academic backgrounds might be a hint that serious and prolonged thought by people formally trained in analysis has gone into critically evaluating the abolitionist approach before accepting it”.

Dan C while your comments were not meant to be condescending to readers of the forum some people could think that abolitionists are an elitist bunch of middle class academics who while they are well versed in the theory may very well be out of touch with the real world of activism

maybe other readers could see this to be an Argumentum ad Verecundiam (an appeal to authority to support the abolitionist argument) i.e. vegans should adopt an abolitionist approach/model because people with strong academic backgrounds in philosophy, law, and sociology are abolitionists.

what I would like to see is a practical way forward for the vegan movement to achieve justice for all human and non-human sentient beings

I would prefer not to see the rhetoric continue back and forth

six dot points to guide us all in the right direction would be great start :-)

MikeyM,

The more vegans there are, the easier it is to go vegan, the more demand for and options of vegan products, and the more influence there is to go vegan. It's a possible snowball effect.

I've heard 30% as a viable percentage of vegans to strongly influence politics. That sounds reasonable to be as an estimate.

The more vegans there are, the more concern about welfare there is among nonvegans ( for various reasons, some if which are obvious). Vegan education has a direct influence on people regarding welfare. The opposite isn't true: welfare doesn't have an influence to increase the vegan population outside of showing cruelty, which can be used for either vegan education or welfare.

MikeyM that's not what I understood Dan to be saying..my reading of it was that academic thinkers had accepted the position of abolitionism as the most valid philosophical stance, which is analagous to saying that scientists had accepted the position that climate change is due to global warming... is there a problem with the latter, or might we think that environmentalists are an elitist bunch because we mention scientists?

The desire for abolition is the same amongst us all here, so let's not get too distracted with why and more focus on how.

The single issue in contention is being effective. The discusion so far is akin to rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.


The word Vegan was established 50 years ago and we have about 2-3% of the Western population, I would rate this a marketing failure.

A change in tactics is well overdue and Abolition is the sort of big change in approach that should be considered. Early feedback on this mono-approach leaves me with grave concerns we may drop to 0% effectiveness.

The basis of modern marketing is understanding the target people. I think we need different approaches for different types of people.
The fact that many people still smoke tells me health arguments will not be convincing for everyone.
The fact that I see people litter, buy V8s, not use recycled paper tells me not everyone will be convinced by environmental arguments.
The fact that the only difference between two human animals that are segregated, murdered or enslaved is their skin colour shows the compassion argument will not work on animals with even more differences.

Different arguments work on different people. Even the abolition argument may be appropriate in some cases.

We don't need 6 points. We need 5 questions leading to 1 of 3 compelling points.

ZZ … the reference to 6 dot points was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the unwritten rule of Powerpoint presentations where you shouldn't put any more than 6 dot points per slide … I’d be just as happy with “5 questions leading to 1 of 3 compelling points” lol … Mike

noosagranny … thank you for your comments

my issue with Dan C’s post was the inference that people with a strong academic background in philosophy, law, and sociology are better able to determine the validly of the abolitionist approach than the folk who read the posts on this forum

I have asked for the rhetoric to be translated into a practical way forward for the vegan movement to achieve justice for all human and non-human sentient beings

Mike

Thanks MikeyM - that's putting it simply and to the point.  I await the answer.