Animal Rights Zone

Fighting for animal liberation and an end to speciesism

At least a few times every year, an animal welfare organization
sponsors an undercover investigation and generates a “cruelty video”
showing the torture that various innocent nonhumans endure in
slaughterhouses, feeding operations, laboratories, rodeos, zoos,
circuses, or various other locations of animal use. I covered a classic
case of an undercover investigation and the resulting video in a blog
post entitled, PETA’s Undercover Investigations: Another Example of the Welfarist ....

As I noted in the blog post on PETA’s investigation, undercover
investigations (and the related cruelty videos) don’t seem problematic
from an animal rights point of view. After all, human rights
organizations routinely investigate, report, and promote videos
depicting severe human suffering to bring the public’s attention to a
problem and garner political support to end such abuses. However, when
human rights organizations depict cruelty toward humans, they are
sending an unequivocal message that the rights violations – slavery,
exploitation, and killing – are wrong and should end. In contrast,
animal welfare organizations (PETA, HSUS, et al) object only
to how the slavery, exploitation, and killing are carried out. They do
not object to the unnecessary slavery, exploitation, and killing, per se. The animal welfare organization’s
call to action is for the viewer to send a donation to the organization
and usually a letter to an industry executive or governmental official
either to enforce existing regulations or to adopt new regulations or methods.

In contrast to an animal welfare organization (e.g. PETA, HSUS, Mercy for Animals, et al), an animal rights organization might show the video; but if it did, the message would be
first, that all institutions of animal use are unnecessary and harmful,
and therefore wrong and should end; second, that the viewer should
therefore go vegan as a minimum standard of decency;
third, how to go vegan by providing information on vegan recipes and
nutrition (perhaps in the form of Internet links to various sources of
information); and fourth, perhaps consider a donation to help our work
in providing vegan education to the public.

Cruelty videos are considered essential for animal welfare advocacy because it is the treatment, not the unnecessary use, to which welfare organizations take exception. Cruelty videos are nonessential, and possibly even detrimental, for an animal rights organization because it is the unnecessary use alone to which the animal rights organization takes exception. The
reason that cruelty videos can be detrimental to an animal rights
organization’s mission is that such videos inherently focus on
treatment, not use, even though the cruel treatment is an inevitable
symptom of the disease of use. By focusing on treatment, such videos do
not suggest that use ought to end, but that use ought to be regulated.

Given that cruelty videos focus on treatment instead of use, a question
arises as to whether it is ever appropriate for an animal rights
organization or advocate to use cruelty videos in vegan education. On
one hand, Professor Gary Francione provides good reasons
to consistently avoid cruelty videos in vegan education. On the other
hand, there have been many people who have become vegans as a result of
the emotional impact that such videos can deliver. Some of these vegans have later gone on to become abolitionist vegans after hearing or reading the overwhelmingly strong evidence and cogent arguments supporting the abolitionist approach.

Is the emotional impact of cruelty videos strong and effective enough to justify occasionally
showing or linking to them, despite the confusion that may arise by the
focus of such videos on treatment rather than use, and other good reasons to avoid them set forth by Professor Francione? The best answer appears to depend on the circumstances.

Since cruelty videos are essential to animal welfare organizations and provide big fundraising opportunities, animal welfare organizations
will continue to generate these videos and the big news stories that
usually accompany the initial publication of the videos. At times when
these videos are in mainstream news, abolitionist vegan advocates
should at least have a response to the videos that includes, but goes
beyond, the legitimate complaint that they focus on treatment, not use.
A more effective response would be that all commercial use is cruel,
and that all cruelty and use, illegal and legal, is unnecessary, and therefore gratuitous.

There is no meaningful difference between the legal use and cruelty that is required to process animal commodity units efficiently versus the illegal so-called “gratuitous cruelty” that is not required to process animal commodity units efficiently. As Professor Francione
has correctly stated, all of our uses of nonhumans are for pleasure,
amusement, or convenience. None of our uses are necessary in
any coherent sense of that word. Therefore, whether the pleasure and/or
amusement is that of the non-vegan’s preference for animal products or
the slaughterhouse worker’s preference for a diversion from the boredom
and frustration of processing sentient commodity units, it is all gratuitous, and the “legal cruelty” is often far more severe than the “illegal cruelty”. The only difference between legal and illegal treatment is whether or not the cruelty results in efficient processing.
The severity of the cruelty is irrelevant in the eyes of the law, and
always will be irrelevant as long as nonhumans are legal property. [1]
And as long as people are not vegan, nonhumans will always be legal

Aside from responding to such videos by explaining that all use and cruelty is unnecessary and should be abolished, not
regulated, abolitionist vegan advocates should be careful about sharing
or promoting such videos while they are headline news. If the videos
are shown at all by abolitionists while the videos are headline news,
the abolitionist message should be front and center: that use must be
abolished, not regulated; that people must go vegan to end the torture
and unjustified use, not choose animal products with a vacuous
feel-good label. These videos are already getting plenty of viewing
attention; the problem is that the associated message is predominately
for enforcement, more regulation or more efficient methods, not a call
for veganism and abolition.

During quieter times when such videos are not in the news, they might be effective for emotional
impact. If the video has an explicit regulationist message, such a
message may override any benefit derived from emotional impact, despite
an advocate providing a contrary abolitionist message, and the video
should therefore be avoided. If the video has no explicit welfarist
message, and a strong abolitionist message is presented both before and
after the video, the video’s treatment focus may be overcome
sufficiently to justify the option of its presentation for the purpose
of emotional impact.

Finally, cruelty videos are always, at best, optional tools for abolitionist vegan advocates to generate an
emotional impact. The abolitionist message does not depend in any way
on how animals are treated; only that they are used, and that all of
our uses are for unnecessary pleasure, amusement, or entertainment.
When in doubt, it is best to avoid such videos.


[1] Professor Gary Francione provides overwhelmingly strong evidence in
case law and legal theory that anticruelty laws are based solely on
maximizing the efficiency of animal exploitation and have nothing to
do, in any practical sense whatsoever, with the type or severity of the
cruelty or maltreatment. Moreover, since humans have respect-based
legal property rights of which the object of that right protection is
nonhuman animals (who have no rights), the most trivial of human
interests will always trump the most crucial of nonhuman animals’
interests. Our legal system strongly resists punishing rightholders in
the least for violating even the most crucial of interests of their
property. Consider reading 1) Animals, Property, and the Law; 2) Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement; and 3) Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog,
all by distinguished law professor and philosopher Gary L. Francione
for detailed analyses and numerous case law studies supporting these
claims. (Note: There are links in the side bar to for Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement and Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog.)

Views: 12

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of Animal Rights Zone to add comments!

Join Animal Rights Zone


  • Add Videos
  • View All

ARZone Podcasts!

Please visit this webpage to subscribe to ARZone podcasts using iTunes


Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Follow ARZone!

Please follow ARZone on:




A place for animal advocates to gather and discuss issues, exchange ideas, and share information.

Creative Commons License
Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) by ARZone is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) Disclaimer

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) is an animal rights site. As such, it is the position of ARZone that it is only by ending completely the use of other animal as things can we fulfill our moral obligations to them.

Please read the full site disclosure here.

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) Mission Statement

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) exists to help educate vegans and non-vegans alike about the obligations human beings have toward all other animals.

Please read the full mission statement here.





© 2020   Created by Animal Rights Zone.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service