Rights vs Welfare

[compassionate1]

I guess I'm a bit confused here.

My understanding is that the discussion is hanging around welfarists, whose fundamental philosophy is "it's okay to use them, but there should be a certain level of treatment", as opposed to people who are against "use" and would like to see use abolished, but believe that change in societal attitudes is a slow process and therefore find that things like banning foie gras, for example, are worthwhile and positive steps in the right direction (and a better way to change society).

And that while those things are not the ultimate goal (which is to end animal use), they should be applauded as steps that society is moving in the right direction.

Am I making sense? Because I kind of want to know where that philosophy is in the equation.

[nauthiz]

Originally Posted by mountainvegan

C’mon, a “Gish Gallop” after two posts on an Internet forum? Are you serious?

Yes, I am serious. What I'm running into here is what I feel I run into every time I come across an argument that new welfarism is wrong and the only way to go is a straight run for abolitionism - a whole lot of claims - many of them based on unstated assumptions, not all of them 100% consistent with each other - thrown out in a rapid-fire manner such that trying to address everything systematically is a herculean task. I'm already finding myself picking and choosing what I respond to in an effort to just keep the line of discussion down to something small enough to maintain in my head. Simultaneously there's this game of intellectual whack-a-mole going on where nothing stays put and every time I think I've pinned it down it pops up again.

For example, in some arguments welfarism is understood to be "new welfarism", a tactic. In other arguments welfarism is understood to be an ideology. They're two different ideas but in each argument the assertion seems to be that the current welfarism is the one that's being argued against. That won't fly. Pick one - and if pinning both of them down is necessary, then let's handle them one at a time so we don't end up hopelessly mired in semantics.

It’s more like you’ve walked into Abolition 101 without having read the prerequisite assigned material. You’re finding it hard to keep up because apparently you haven’t thought enough about this issues surrounding this difference between two opposing movements.

I'd appreciate you not just totally condescending to me simply because I disagree with you and don't happen to have read your favorite book.

First, inherent conflicts between rights-holders and property are much deeper than merely conflicts in court; these conflict run throughout the entire legal philosophy and foundation.

Yes. I believe if you read back you'll notice that I was the one who pointed that out, in an attempt to point out that an argument based purely on conflicts in court won't do.

Further, legislation and jurisprudence may function in different ways, but they are very interdependent (i.e. they affect each other very much).

That's not what I was asking for. Of course they're interdependent; one can't even exist in any meaningful way without the other. That doesn't mean they work the same way.

You’re completely missing the point. New welfarism will, no doubt, get some companies to sell only cage-free eggs without a legal mandate, but cage-free eggs just make certain people feel morally superior for buying eggs under the illusion that there is nothing wrong with exploiting and killing chickens in the first place.

I'm getting blue in the face asking someone to explain to me why this is the only option. I've already given one person who serves as a great counterexample to the assertion that this is the only possible way that people interact with welfare reforms. Now if you want to argue that most people will respond one way or another, great, let's do that. But no amount of mantra-chanting can overturn a counterexample.

Every vegan resource supporting welfare is a resource ignoring, or even worse, opposing abolition, whether directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally.

You're either for us or you're against us! Where have I heard that one before?

What impact on people’s opinions do welfare reforms have on people’s opinions? 1) It reinforces the idea that “unnecessary” suffering (e.g. cages) is bad, but that any suffering endured for the mass-production of eggs or meat for 300 million humans is “necessary.” 2) It makes them feel morally superior for exploiting and killing animals. 3) It makes some vegetarians go back to meat, egg, and dairy consumption because the “unnecessary suffering” has been “taken care of.”

"This isn't an argument, this is just contradiction!"

Really. This is getting extremely annoying.

Although I occasionally enjoy reading and discussing such sophisms in the Philosophy forum, I agree with you that this isn’t the place for it.

Sophism, eh? Are you suggesting we take the gloves off?

I haven't even given an explanation for that idea and you're calling it sophism. Odd, really, since sophism is a term that's traditionally used to describe arguments, not conclusions.

Let’s also remember that the argument I made was neither a series structure (each premise relying on the previous one) nor even a convergent structure (all premises must be carried as a whole); it was a parallel structure (each premise is sufficient for the conclusion by itself). Therefore, it is not a logical fallacy; I simply provided three independently good reasons instead of merely one good reason.

Now you're playing the revisionist history game. The argument we're talking about in this particular thread of debate had exactly one premise. True, that premise happened to be the conclusion of a previous argument. That doesn't change the fact that the argument in question was of the form a->b.

A few recent articles have been on the topic of former vegetarians going omnivore because of new welfare reforms. It is also proven virtually every time non-vegans visit Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary as they proudly proclaim: “Oh, it’s okay, I only eat free-range beef and chicken and cage-free eggs.” When I went vegan, my mother and a two of my siblings said the same thing: “Oh, we only eat the free-range and organic meat and dairy.” Incidentally, you say “prove it” and I’ll take that as “show me a reason to believe it” (which I have), not “prove it” like a geometrical proof.

When I say prove it, I mean "You keep presenting this as the only (or dominant) way things happen. You haven't shown this, you have only shown that it does happen. For me to believe it, I'm going to have to see an argument that other alternatives don't happen, or happen so rarely that welfarism actually does result in fewer people coming to the idea of animal rights." A couple anecdotes proves nothing to me. The fact that some people make certain claims (which may or may not be true - I have met a lot of people who claim a lot of things just to try and make themselves look better to me) doesn't prove anything to me.

BTW, welfare reform isn’t going away. Millions of meat eaters will always support better husbandry. It’s abolition that ONLY vegans support, and tragically, only a minority of us. Most vegans seem to be right on board supporting husbandry reform: the meat eaters’ cause. Welfarism is huge and bloated; abolition is starving largely because so many vegans ignore it in favor of support of welfare. It would be comical if it weren’t so pathetic and tragic.

There's that "with us or against us" fallacy, right there with its old friend "shapeshifting welfarism." Let's get this straight - I'm talking about what Francione calls "new welfarism." This is welfarism as a tactic. This form of welfarism is not incompatible with believing in animal rights. This form of welfarism is not content with exploitation within bounds. The fact that it's a cause for some people does not mean that it cannot be a technique for others.

I never claimed or implied that those reasons applied to you. I only claimed that the reasons (law, social acceptance, and metaphysical) applied to most people in some combination.

I was trying to point out that failing to acknowledge other possibilities is incorrect. If those are the only three, there is little avenue open to social change. Which of those three are we supposed to use to get people to go vegan? Personally I don't see much in the literature that relies on any of the three you listed. It seems to me that most of us put our faith in people's interest in feeling good about themselves.

Big Exploitation will force welfare reform to their needs unless the public gradually, over years and decades, has a deep paradigm shift about the moral and property status of animals. Working WITH Big Exploitation for welfare reform will only play into their interests and the status quo. Working INDEPENDENTLY from Big Exploitation to shift the paradigm of the public with vegan incremental steps will slowly and quietly erode their public acceptance like termites erode a large wooden structure.

Questions:
Is working with big exploitation the only way to achieve welfare goals?
Are there no cases where working with the dominant industries can help to shift the dominant social paradigms?
Is vociferously criticizing attempts to work within the mainstream the best way to entice members of the mainstream over to our little intellectual eddy?

Welfarism is born of a sense of urgency to see an immediate payoff, but it is a Faustian bargain with industry leading nowhere. Abolition is the long, difficult path, but it’s the only way real progress will ever be achieved. Like most huge paradigm shifts in society, it will take decades, but we need to start somewhere and some time. The time is now. Throwing vegan resources into husbandry reform will only delay the day when real progress is made.

Yes, that's the fundamental disagreement between strict abolitionists and new welfarists. But I already knew your thesis - what I'm looking for is a reason why I should agree with it.

BTW, the “legalistic” arguments are vital to developing an abolition movement instead of the current industry-welfare partnership movement. But the “legalistic” arguments are just part of a large group of moral, economic, and consistency arguments for abolition.

That's great to know, since the legalistic arguments haven't convinced me. I'm intrigued - what are these moral, economic, and consistency-based arguments?

Why not be consistent in what we believe and advocate for? Why should I promote two contradictory claims at once: 1) we should not exploit and kill animals, AND 2) we should exploit and kill animals (as long as it’s done “humanely” – whatever the f*ck that means)? What should we promote? Our own values or some cage-free egg eaters’ or egg producers values?

Straw man. This argument relies on failing to make a distinction between "less bad" and "not bad", a distinction that is central to the idea of new welfarism.

If I’m opposed to rape, why should I try to convince a rapist to refrain from beating his victim instead of trying to convince him not to rape? If I’m opposed to slavery, why should I try to convince a slave owner to only beat his slave 3 times a day instead of 5 times a day? Why not just fight slavery?

False dilemma.

[nauthiz]

Originally Posted by mountainvegan

My point in bringing up differences in moral philosophy is actually relevant, because utilitarian and other ethical systems don’t require abolition, per se, like rights-based moral philosophy does. This does underlie some of the differences in welfarism versus abolition.

How so?

[nauthiz]

Originally Posted by mountainvegan

I’ll add referring to the Francione-Marcus debate that while Francione is clearly a better debater than Marcus, Francione also knew his own argument and Marcus’s argument inside-out, while Marcus was clearly clueless about Francione’s argument and had no business challenging what he was so in-the-dark about.

Let me repeat myself:

If winning debates were the same thing as being right, I'd be a young-earth creationist by now.

I don't take who won what debate as evidence of anything. The value of a debate is the arguments that are raised in it.

[Dave_81]

Originally Posted by nauthiz

Also, I don't see the value in bringing up different schools of ethical philosophy. The new welfare versus abolitionism debate is about tactics; it has nothing to do with ethics.

No, this is wrong. It concerns fundamental moral principles. Whether you're prepared -- as moral matter -- to promote animal exploitation (e.g. cage-free eggs), or whether you're unequivocally opposed to doing so as a matter of principle, amounts to more than just a disagreement about tactics.

If an anti-rape campaigner thinks that it's acceptable to promote "humane" rape as a means to the end of eradicating rape, and another thinks that it is unacceptable to do so, this would (no doubt) amount to more than a debate over strategy.

Whether you're prepared to promote animal exploitation is fundamentally about morality as well as tactics.

Also, there two types of vegans: "inherent value" vegans and "reduce suffering" vegans. The former think that animal use is the main issue, and that use isn't make better by improving treatment. The latter think that treatment is the primary issue, and that use can be made acceptable by improving treatment. Inherent value vegans are obviously inspired by rights philosophy -- they are the abolitionists; reduce suffering vegans (who are really just welfarists) are obviously inspired by Singer. (An example of a reduce suffering vegan would be Paul Shapiro, who recently said that veganism wasn't an end in itself, but only a tool for reducing suffering.)

[epski]

Good thing debates aren't necessarily based on volume...

[mountainvegan]

Originally Posted by compassionate1

I guess I'm a bit confused here.

My understanding is that the discussion is hanging around welfarists, whose fundamental philosophy is "it's okay to use them, but there should be a certain level of treatment", as opposed to people who are against "use" and would like to see use abolished, but believe that change in societal attitudes is a slow process and therefore find that things like banning foie gras, for example, are worthwhile and positive steps in the right direction (and a better way to change society).

And that while those things are not the ultimate goal (which is to end animal use), they should be applauded as steps that society is moving in the right direction.

Am I making sense? Because I kind of want to know where that philosophy is in the equation.

Compassionate1, read Gary Francione’s Rain Without Thunder (RWT). In it, he defines and distinguishes between traditional welfarism, new welfarism, and abolition. Traditional welfarism is “it's okay to use them, but there should be a certain level of treatment". New welfarism wants abolition at some point, but claims that incremental welfare reform is both desirable and necessary as the path to arrive at abolition. Abolitionism unequivocally rejects incremental welfare reform as desirable or necessary, and considers it antithetical and contradictory to the goal of abolition, claiming that the only path to abolition is incremental vegan advocacy. New welfarists believe in promoting both welfare reform and veganism; abolitionists believe that promoting welfare reform contradicts, equivocates between, and makes an obstacle to the goal of widespread veganism and abolition.

Abolitionists realize that the effort will take decades, but believe we still need to focus our extremely limited resources on the only path which is inherently consistent and the most direct and pragmatic. Abolitionists also acknowledge that traditional and new welfarism, already very strong, will continue and grow stronger, and that aboltitionist efforts will help welfarists, but welfarists won’t help abolitionists to the extent that the spend resources on welfare reform.

I hope that clears it up a little for you; however, to really understand and obtain plenty of rational and empirical support for the abolitionist position, you should read RWT.

Originally Posted by nauthiz

Yes, I am serious. What I'm running into here is what I feel I run into every time I come across an argument that new welfarism is wrong and the only way to go is a straight run for abolitionism - a whole lot of claims - many of them based on unstated assumptions, not all of them 100% consistent with each other - thrown out in a rapid-fire manner such that trying to address everything systematically is a herculean task. I'm already finding myself picking and choosing what I respond to in an effort to just keep the line of discussion down to something small enough to maintain in my head. Simultaneously there's this game of intellectual whack-a-mole going on where nothing stays put and every time I think I've pinned it down it pops up again.

Well, nauthiz, if you read RWT, I’m sure it won’t be as overwhelming for you. The claims I’ve made are straightforward and backed up rationally and empirically.
Further, I’m sorry you find Internet forum debate frustrating because of its “many claims,” its lack of stating every assumption, its lack of assuring “100%” consistency among all claims and assumptions, and the apparent “rapidity” of it all when you have literally days to respond. However we’re not writing a book-length philosophical treatise, nor are we painstakingly calculating all of the factors needed to, say, launch the Hubble space telescope without it slamming into Jupiter. This debate is no different than any other forum debate. It’s a level playing field, except that I have the advantage of being well-read in abolition and you don’t have such an advantage. I think there are also some deeper philosophical differences which are causing us to “talk past each other.” Most of what I’m saying in this debate is obviously new to you, but instead of saying, “look, I haven’t read or thought about abolition much and I’ll get back to you when I do,” you’ve decided to shoot from the hip and back into a hyper-skepiticism about something you haven’t even given a chance.

Let me also tell you that real-life debate is not about formal logic, “proofs”, and deductive reasoning, although all three can play a role. Real-life debate more often includes informal logic, inductive reasoning, analogies, unstated assumptions, subjective probability, and even generalizations and intuition. IOW, it’s not a big math equation or a formal logic drill; it’s about having better reasons to accept one claim or resolution over another often based on numerous pieces of evidence and inferences all coming together in various argument structures and leading to reasonable and compelling, but not absolute conclusions.

Originally Posted by nauthiz

For example, in some arguments welfarism is understood to be "new welfarism", a tactic. In other arguments welfarism is understood to be an ideology. They're two different ideas but in each argument the assertion seems to be that the current welfarism is the one that's being argued against. That won't fly. Pick one - and if pinning both of them down is necessary, then let's handle them one at a time so we don't end up hopelessly mired in semantics.

I would say that new welfarism is both a (bad) tactic and a (harmful) ideology and strategy. I think the equivocation though comes from the equivocation inherent in the new welfarist’s position (tactic or ideology) itself. It’s difficult to avoid equivocating when talking about new welfarism because it’s inherently equivocal. Exploit and kill animals “humanely”; don’t exploit and kill animals.

Anyway, you can assume I’m talking about new welfarism unless I state that I’m talking about traditional welfarism.

Originally Posted by nauthiz

I'd appreciate you not just totally condescending to me simply because I disagree with you and don't happen to have read your favorite book.

I’d appreciate not having to educate someone who thinks they know it all about abolition without having read an essential book on the topic. The reason I said, perhaps condescendingly, that you’ve walked into Abolition 101 without reading the prerequisite assigned material is because I find you to be at least somewhat arrogant in arguing against something you obviously haven’t read and don’t know much about. Your objections have been mostly content-free skepticism rather than substantive arguments or rebuttals, which admittedly is a good way to proceed when your background in the subject matter is relatively lacking, but it is also closed-minded and inconsiderate of those who have read much more about the topic.

That said, your track record as a critical thinker on this forum is impressive. Intelligence and critical thinking will only get you so far though; you need preparation. Ironically, I think the preparation may persuade you to change your mind. Then again, motive and especially underlying views are often the key to being persuaded, not intelligence, so who knows? Judging by your hyper-skepticism, I question whether or not you have any interest in understanding the abolitionist position. Again, I also think there are deeper philosophical differences, which I’ll touch on in the next post.

[mountainvegan]

Originally Posted by nauthiz

Yes. I believe if you read back you'll notice that I was the one who pointed that out, in an attempt to point out that an argument based purely on conflicts in court won't do.

Which is why it’s imperative that we start attacking the root (property status) now instead of later.

Originally Posted by nauthiz

I'm getting blue in the face asking someone to explain to me why this is the only option. I've already given one person who serves as a great counterexample to the assertion that this is the only possible way that people interact with welfare reforms. Now if you want to argue that most people will respond one way or another, great, let's do that. But no amount of mantra-chanting can overturn a counterexample.

Yes, while some people concerned about welfare now will certainly end up vegan later, that doesn’t mean promoting welfare is a good way to persuade people to go vegan. Promoting welfare also does, in fact, make most people more comfortable about meat eating and, in fact, and more importantly, reinforces the idea that it’s fine to exploit and kill animals, as long as we do it in accordance with whatever happens to be the currently fashionable, but arbitrary, interpretation of “humane” and “necessary”. The comments at Peaceful Prairie and during the times that I engage the public IRL and on-line provide a copious amount of evidence that welfare is very effective at making people comfortable about animal product consumption. If you don’t see that in your own world, either we live in different worlds, or you need to get out more.

Originally Posted by nauthiz

You're either for us or you're against us! Where have I heard that one before?

I think Dubya said it (do I get a prize?). Even bad presidents come up with occasionally useful exclamations.
Anyway, read my lips: I do see two movements deeply opposed to each other: new welfarist and abolitionist. That’s fine with me. I hope new welfarists get the “second paradigm shift” and go abolition someday soon, but if they don’t, they are against us to the extent they promote “happy meat.”
(BTW, since you seem to like nitpicking on logical consistency, the implied negative stigma on Dubya’s exclamation is an ad hominem fallacy. Just because a bad president said it, doesn’t mean it’s necessarily “bad” in this context.)

Originally Posted by nauthiz

Really. This is getting extremely annoying.

I’m sorry you find it annoying, but what I said is true of most people.

Originally Posted by nauthiz

Sophism, eh? Are you suggesting we take the gloves off?

I haven't even given an explanation for that idea and you're calling it sophism. Odd, really, since sophism is a term that's traditionally used to describe arguments, not conclusions.

Gloves off? I didn’t know we were boxing, but it does seem I’ve touched a nerve there.

Nauthiz, you’ve got to expect a little ridicule off the cuff when you toss out a random conclusion like conflating means and ends and saying that any distinction between them is arbitrary and illusory. I’m sure you’ve got an excellent sophism to back it up, i.e. a clever argument that’s irrelevant to the current discussion and is merely from some unique perspective that likely doesn’t apply here. Seriously though, if you want, start a thread on it. Thanks for refraining here.

Originally Posted by nauthiz

Now you're playing the revisionist history game. The argument we're talking about in this particular thread of debate had exactly one premise. True, that premise happened to be the conclusion of a previous argument. That doesn't change the fact that the argument in question was of the form a->b.

Okay, I thought you were referring to the follow up arguments that I made, which were parallel in structure. No disagreement that the one you referred to was a->b.

Originally Posted by nauthiz

When I say prove it, I mean "You keep presenting this as the only (or dominant) way things happen. You haven't shown this, you have only shown that it does happen. For me to believe it, I'm going to have to see an argument that other alternatives don't happen, or happen so rarely that welfarism actually does result in fewer people coming to the idea of animal rights." A couple anecdotes proves nothing to me. The fact that some people make certain claims (which may or may not be true - I have met a lot of people who claim a lot of things just to try and make themselves look better to me) doesn't prove anything to me

I’m not saying it’s the only way things happen, but I am saying it’s a dominant way to such an extent that it makes welfare promotion detrimental to abolition. I’ve already stated why and provided evidence, and there is also plenty of support in RWT. I’ve already shown that it is inherently equivocal to promote both “happy meat” and veganism/abolition. There are 3 recent articles about former veggies going omni also, one in the BBC a couple of weeks ago; I’ll try to find them. This welfarism comfort completely makes sense to me. In fact, if animal suffering was my primary or only concern, I may or may not be vegan (it wouldn’t necessarily be a moral imperative), at least not after industry achieved consensus with “the authority” welfare organizations. I’m vegan because I’m opposed to exploitation and killing, which certainly includes suffering, but goes much, much further morally than just suffering.

Originally Posted by nauthiz

There's that "with us or against us" fallacy, right there with its old friend "shapeshifting welfarism." Let's get this straight - I'm talking about what Francione calls "new welfarism." This is welfarism as a tactic. This form of welfarism is not incompatible with believing in animal rights. This form of welfarism is not content with exploitation within bounds. The fact that it's a cause for some people does not mean that it cannot be a technique for others.

All welfarism, new and traditional, is antithetical to abolition and animal rights, at least my view of animal rights. “With us or against us” is not a fallacy. Is everything you don’t agree with a “fallacy”?

Anyway, do what you want, nauthiz. If you think promoting “happy meat” is the way to animal rights, you do that. At this point, I guess I don’t care. You can count me out of that welfarist nonsense, though. I’ve tried to touch on some of the major points and provide some evidence for accepting those points. There is obviously far more to it in RWT, especially with regard to empirical and rational evidence supporting the major claims.

Originally Posted by nauthiz

I was trying to point out that failing to acknowledge other possibilities is incorrect. If those are the only three, there is little avenue open to social change. Which of those three are we supposed to use to get people to go vegan? Personally I don't see much in the literature that relies on any of the three you listed. It seems to me that most of us put our faith in people's interest in feeling good about themselves.

Generally speaking, (since you tend to take everything I say “absolutely”) most people look to the herd for their morality and behavior standards and after that, at least in this country, most of the rest look to the bible. It’s true that there are some, like many here at VRF, who tend to be free-thinkers. They are the ones we need to reach. They are not the majority, but they can help us prod the herd to more empathic and just pastures.

Originally Posted by nauthiz

Questions:
Is working with big exploitation the only way to achieve welfare goals?

I’m not interested in welfare or better husbandry goals; I’m interested in abolition. There is no way to get to abolition compromising with Big Exploitation on husbandry issues.

Originally Posted by nauthiz

Are there no cases where working with the dominant industries can help to shift the dominant social paradigms?

Yes: persuade them to carry vegan products and substitutes.

Originally Posted by nauthiz

Is vociferously criticizing attempts to work within the mainstream the best way to entice members of the mainstream over to our little intellectual eddy?

Working with the mainstream is not the problem. The problem is focusing on welfare or husbandry improvements instead of vegan replacement. How much animal protection money goes to fight and work with industry on better husbandry as opposed to money going to vegan education and outreach, including AR education? Depending on who is counted in “animal protection”, it is anywhere from 85-98% going to husbandry reform compared to 2-15% going to AR and vegan education. That needs to reverse if there is going to be any meaningful progress.

Originally Posted by nauthiz

Yes, that's the fundamental disagreement between strict abolitionists and new welfarists. But I already knew your thesis - what I'm looking for is a reason why I should agree with it.

I’ve given you plenty of reasons to agree with it, but the essence of your rebuttal is content-free skepticism. Content-free because you don’t give reasons why you disagree or provide counterclaims with evidence; you merely reject it all out-of-hand. I also think there are deep philosophical differences; more on that later in this post.

I again suggest you read RWT. If you read that and still disagree, then fine, do what you think is best. I won’t discuss the topic with you further. At some point, it becomes fruitless to discuss certain issues with certain people. For example, I think creationism is flat out wrong as a matter of fact, but I’m certainly not going to argue with someone who firmly believes it. If you firmly believe in welfarism after reading RWT, I’ll leave you alone (I’ll probably leave you alone earlier than that on this topic, but you probably get my point).

Originally Posted by nauthiz

That's great to know, since the legalistic arguments haven't convinced me. I'm intrigued - what are these moral, economic, and consistency-based arguments?

Never mind. I’m starting to think I’m knocking on locked bank vault asking the vault itself for permission to open and make a deposit. You’ve adopted a stone-wall skepticism that I’m not entirely convinced that RWT will even penetrate. That would be fine, but you’ve offered no good arguments or counterclaims that we should accept for your rejection.

Our exchange so far has gone something like:
MV: The sun will rise tomorrow.
N: Proof it.
MV: It always has in the past.
N: You haven’t proved anything. There is no logical certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow just because it has in the past. (stone-wall skepticism)
MV: You’re right, but we have more reason to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow than that it won’t.
N: You still haven’t convinced me. (stone-wall skepticism)
MV: Okay, believe what you will. I’m finished here.

Originally Posted by nauthiz

Straw man. This argument relies on failing to make a distinction between "less bad" and "not bad", a distinction that is central to the idea of new welfarism.

No, this argument acknowledges the distinction between “less bad” and “not bad”, but says that when we ask for “less bad”, the general public assumes that “less bad” is good (or the goal) and “not bad” is drowned out, marginalized, and claimed to be “fanatical”, “extreme”, and “fundamentalist.” This is a blatantly obvious empirical fact, common knowledge, and needs no other support for any vegan awake to what has been written and said by welfarists from Peter Singer to Michael Pollan.

Also, there is an unaccepted assumption that what you call “less bad” is really less bad. I would claim that most or all of the benefit derived from “less bad” is offset by an increased acceptance of animal exploitation and killing.

Also, your whole argument rests on the underlying assumption that suffering is all that matters, and if we can somehow remove suffering from exploitation and killing, that exploitation and killing is morally acceptable, and it is not, not to me anyway.

Further, it is, under the animal rights view that exploitation and killing is wrong regardless of the lack of suffering, contradictory to claim that exploitation and killing is both acceptable and unacceptable.

I reject the entire welfarist position right down to its deep philosophical roots, which is why I said our disagreement runs very deep philosophically.

Originally Posted by nauthiz

False dilemma.

No it isn’t, because of what I stated above.

Originally Posted by nauthiz

How so?

Already addressed above and by Dave 81.

Originally Posted by nauthiz

Let me repeat myself:

If winning debates were the same thing as being right, I'd be a young-earth creationist by now.

I don't take who won what debate as evidence of anything. The value of a debate is the arguments that are raised in it.

Taken in isolation, you are correct, but the arguments have been out there in books and on forums, including VRF. Marcus failed not because of poor debate skills (although it was a factor), but largely because he had no good arguments. Welfarists don’t have good arguments – their position is inconsistent within an abolitionist paradigm. New welfarists generally accept abolition as a long-term goal, but ultimately because they view it as the best way or merely as a “tool” to maximize the reduction of suffering. Most new welfarists, such as Paul Shapiro and Matt Ball, do not see veganism as a moral imperative, but merely as a “tool” (apparently one of many), to reduce suffering. Abolitionists see veganism as a moral imperative or moral baseline, not merely as a tool.

So, to get into the deeper philosophical differences, perhaps you fall under the “less suffering” paradigm of new welfarism instead of the “no exploitation or killing” paradigm of abolition. But even if reducing suffering is your goal, getting people to go vegan is still going to pay bigger long-term dividends than better husbandry practices. Further, while abolitionists can help welfarists, welfarists cannot help abolitionists, and in fact, welfarists counter abolitionist efforts.

So, there are two movements. Think carefully, empathically, and justly. Are you (general/plural “you”) speciesist by holding one view of “no exploitation or killing” for humans while holding a lesser view of “reduce suffering” for nonhumans? Think carefully and pick your movement.

Speaking of “mantra-chanting,” nauthiz (which you’ve pejoratively brought up a couple of times), the “less suffering” paradigm of new welfarists explains the new welfarists tired, old mantra-chanting of “it’s a step in the right direction.” Ironically, it’s also a step in the direction of an endless fundraising money-maker for new welfarists organizations who have claimed an endless parade of “victories” that will last indefinitely, or at least until a strong abolition movement coalesces to call into question exploitation and killing itself. This might explain why big, bloated welfare organizations focus on welfare “victories” instead of vegan and AR education.

You may have the last word, nauthiz. I doubt many people are still interested in this marathon and it seems we’ve come to a point where no meaningful understanding has been or can be accomplished. You can blame it on me, and I can blame it on you. At this point, it simply doesn’t matter. We just deeply and fundamentally disagree, and I believe our disagreements are deep, many, and irreconcilable.

[nauthiz]

Originally Posted by mountainvegan

I’d appreciate not having to educate someone who thinks they know it all about abolition without having read an essential book on the topic.

I've been careful to avoid claiming that I know everything about the topic. This whole thing was started by me saying that I haven't been convinced either way because I've found all of the arguments that I have encountered to be unsatisfactory. So you gave me some arguments, and I've been pointing out the ways in which they are unsatisfactory to me.

You're right, I'm extremely skeptical. If someone were to walk in and start pontificating about welfarism I'd probably start asking questions, too. I see nothing wrong with that.

[nauthiz]

OK, a few and then I'm done with this thread:

I'm sorry I said "with us or against us fallacy." Next time I'll avoid straying too far from the dictionary and call it "false dilemma" instead.

I am amused by the irony in a person who makes unsupported claims getting upset when a person says "ok, why should I believe that?" and calling it content-free skepticism. It's even more interesting when that same person has provided supporting counter-claims a couple times and that's still considered content-free skepticism. It may seem like I'm dismissing everything that's said out-of-hand, but really it's just that I don't necessarily believe anything just because I heard someone say it.

No, I don't call everything I disagree with a fallacy. I'm only calling the logical errors I see fallacies. True, some of the things I've pointed out turned out to be based on misunderstandings on my part. The less bad / no bad one is a fair example. What I should have said is that the argument relies on the implication that new welfarists can't tell the difference between less bad and no bad, or the difference between the completion of a step and the completion of a journey.

Finally, I'm beginning to see that this whole debate is really two different ones. First, there's the question of whether new welfarism or abolitionism can end animal exploitation faster. I still stand where I did before on that one - I question whether I will ever be able to know which is the case without a lot of quality time spent with my bag of runestones. I'd like to know, but for now on this debate all I see is the long-standing leftist tradition of two factions fighting each other because leftists love to fight.

Second, there seems to be a simultaneous attempt by a few to claim that new welfarist goals are somehow acutely immoral. To be honest, this one isn't particularly interesting to me. I try not to have a whole lot of philosophical golden calves, but one that I'm not giving up any time soon is that I cannot accept an ethical system that would tell me that it's immoral to say that living cows here and now should be allowed to walk in open fields or whatever. Y'know what? I know that the foie gras ban in Chicago isn't really being enforced. I know that it's far-fetched to believe it will do much to get people to stop eating ducks and geese in general. I'm still glad it's there.

[CountAgranoff]

Originally Posted by nauthiz

A couple more thoughts:

I'm tired of hearing about Erik Marcus getting trounced by Francione in that debate. I think it's fairly well known at this point that in terms of debate skills, Marcus is an amateur and Francione is a professional,

I am so not tired of hearing about it. Erik has for so long been cocky about his strange views like the non-vegan food at burger king somehow the key to animal liberation. When people argued with him about that and crushed his arguements He reacted by belittling people who disagreed with him.

So I am glad Gary pooped on his worthless arguements. Sure Gary's debating skills had something to do with it but beyond that there was no substance to Erik's arguements. Gary showed Erik's case was devoid of logic and Erik kept repeating himself as if saying red is blue enough times would make it blue.

It had nothing to do with skills everything to do with logic, and Erik not being prepared.

-David

[mountainvegan]

For the record:

Originally Posted by nauthiz

I am amused by the irony in a person who makes unsupported claims getting upset when a person says "ok, why should I believe that?" and calling it content-free skepticism. It's even more interesting when that same person has provided supporting counter-claims a couple times and that's still considered content-free skepticism. It may seem like I'm dismissing everything that's said out-of-hand, but really it's just that I don't necessarily believe anything just because I heard someone say it.

The claims I made were supported either directly in the post, in reference to Francione’s RWT, or after further support was requested. Just as one can be skeptical beyond refutation about anything and everything, one can also complain that unsupported claims were made in any and every argument.

When I first commented on your claim that abolitionists’ arguments were nothing but straw men, non sequitirs, emotional and sensationalist, I said that a thorough case was very difficult to make on an Internet forum and that there was far more evidence in Rain Without Thunder. I still think an excellent case has been made on this forum, not only in this thread from the very beginning of the thread to this particular debate, but also in the Rights v. Welfare thread in the Animals forum.

The fact that you disagree that a good case was made is no evidence whatsoever that a good case was not made. There may be many reasons that you cannot accept the abolition position. I leave it to each reader to make up their own minds about the merits of the case. I also encourage people, regardless of what they think about the merits of the case made on VRF, to read RWT. If they agree, they’ll have good reasons right in the book. If they disagree, at least they’ll likely have a better foundation for their opinion.

Finally, I'm beginning to see that this whole debate is really two different ones. First, there's the question of whether new welfarism or abolitionism can end animal exploitation faster. I still stand where I did before on that one - I question whether I will ever be able to know which is the case without a lot of quality time spent with my bag of runestones. I'd like to know, but for now on this debate all I see is the long-standing leftist tradition of two factions fighting each other because leftists love to fight.

The welfarism part of new welfarism will NEVER end animal exploitation. The only thing that will end animal exploitation is widespread veganism, and the only way to get people to go vegan is to give them reasons to. Welfarism itself only gives people reason to eat “happier” meat.

Second, there seems to be a simultaneous attempt by a few to claim that new welfarist goals are somehow acutely immoral. To be honest, this one isn't particularly interesting to me. I try not to have a whole lot of philosophical golden calves, but one that I'm not giving up any time soon is that I cannot accept an ethical system that would tell me that it's immoral to say that living cows here and now should be allowed to walk in open fields or whatever.

Nobody denies that it is morally better to have cows in open fields than in feedlots or chickens outside of cages than inside. We’re just saying that it is a meat-eaters’ cause to spend resources on. Vegans should spend their chump change (relative to the hundreds of millions “happy meat” advocates and consumers have) on abolition efforts. It’s ironic that vegans are all too willing to help “conscientious omnivores”, but not surprising that “conscientious omnivores” will have nothing to do with abolition efforts.

Y'know what? I know that the foie gras ban in Chicago isn't really being enforced. I know that it's far-fetched to believe it will do much to get people to stop eating ducks and geese in general. I'm still glad it's there.

I never expressed any opposition to the foie gras ban.


For a while now, I’ve been resigned to the fact that we’ve got many decades of the folly of new welfarism before we get on to having a strong abolition movement that will really change anything. I must say, however, that this debate brought me one more step closer to my wife’s position on advocacy of any kind, but especially Internet discussions. She’s a label-reading vegan and abolitionist just like I am, but with one large difference. She is hopelessly cynical, harbors no hope for the future, and with all due respect to me, thinks I’m a fool chasing a pipe dream for engaging in any advocacy other than simply being vegan. She has an especially low opinion of the efficacy of Internet discussions for persuasion. Despite her extreme cynicism, she is also one of the happiest people that I know. Perhaps I just need to live her example, or at least try it out and see if I like it. Happy trails.

[Dave_81]

I, too, am a label-reading abolitionist dreamer. mountainvegan, we desperately need dreamers and utopians. I think it is thoroughly obsence that welfarists use our utopianism as a criticism -- as something to be mocked and rejected. This proves one thing: that these people are incapable of meaningful change. They stand defeated before they've even begun; they are dutiful, fully integrated members of the status quo -- limited to promoting "happy" meat and cage free eggs because they haven't got the capacity to think in a way not explicitly sanctioned by the status quo of welfare. These are the kind of people who dismiss the abolitionist approach even before they've read Francione's books, thereby demonstrating that all they are capable of doing is reinforcing that which currently exists -- closed-minded reactionaries who think that there's something suspicious about being a utopian.

The new welfarists' abolitionist rhetoric is belied by everything they do -- it is completely vacuous. If it was left up to these dutiful drones -- people who are capable of doing nothing but subserving the status quo -- we'd have factory farms for the next 200 years.

I agree with you, mountainvegan, that internet debates with new welfarists often go nowhere. You can spot these drones a mile off. They say Orwellian-sounding things like we need to keep the status quo in order to change it -- we need to keep welfare in order to give people a route to rights. Thereby these people demonstrate their allegiance to the status quo.

Forget these reactionaries and obstacles to change.

We need dreamers and utopians.

[mountainvegan]

I agree, Dave81. The shift from new welfarism to abolitionism is at least as significant a paradigm shift as is the shift from omnivore to vegan, and it is often more difficult to bring about the “second paradigm shift” in vegans than the first shift in omnivores.

Sadly, this is one of the reasons we have such a long way to go. I often tell my wife that I advocate based on principle, i.e. because it’s the right thing to do, not because I have grand hopes for the goodness of humanity. If it were literally impossible to bring about major social change over a long period of time, then principle as a reason for advocacy might not be sufficient. However, as brutish and selfish as human nature is, and as little hope as I have, it is still not impossible that major change will happen during the next 200 years. As long as change is not impossible, it’s worth advocating for now. And so I will continue to advocate, but attempt to avoid useless discussions such as the one I just had in this thread.

[Dave_81]

Originally Posted by mountainvegan

I agree, Dave81. The shift from new welfarism to abolitionism is at least as significant a paradigm shift as is the shift from omnivore to vegan, and it is often more difficult to bring about the “second paradigm shift” in vegans than the first shift in omnivores.

I agree, mountainvegan. Meat eaters are usually people who've simply never thought about the animal issue. When they are told about animal rights, there's always a chance that there is a progressive animal rights advocate lying dormant in them.

Welfarist, on the hand, are people who have thought about the animal issue and have choosen the status quo of welfare. Because welfare = the status quo, it attracts a lot of close-minded people and reactionaries. This is why (I think) it is more difficult to convince vegan welfarists of abolitionism than meat eaters.

Originally Posted by mountainvegan

Sadly, this is one of the reasons we have such a long way to go. I often tell my wife that I advocate based on principle, i.e. because it’s the right thing to do, not because I have grand hopes for the goodness of humanity.

Indeed. I advocate the abolitionist position because it is the right thing to do, but also for a practical reason -- because, within a legal framework that allocates property rights in animals, animal welfare is inherently usless. But of course we both agree on this.

Originally Posted by mountainvegan

I will continue to advocate, but attempt to avoid useless discussions such as the one I just had in this thread.

Two principles I adhere are these:

(1) Do not have anything to do with people who (like Erik Marcus) reject Francione's books a priori . These people are closed-minded reactionaries who are incapable of meaningful change because they aren't even prepared to think in a way not sanctioned by the status quo of welfare. These people clearly have their heads lodged up their rectums.

(2) Do not debate people who haven't read Francione's books, but nonetheless say that they are not convinced by the abolitionist approach. People who can't see that there's a connection between these two things -- between not having read a book and not being convinced by its content -- clearly have their heads lodged up their rectums.