Our Voices, Our Movement: How Vegans Can Move Beyond the “Welfare-Abolition Debate”

[Carolyn Bailey]

Dr. Melanie Joy speaks about the "welfare -vs- abolition "debate"", and suggests a new way of thinking about this issue. 

Our Voices, Our Movement: How Vegans Can Move Beyond the “Welfare-Abolition Debate”

Written by Dr. Melanie Joy 

 

For years I have remained silent on the “welfare-abolition debate,” believing that my limited time and energy as an activist were best directed elsewhere. But recent events have compelled me to witness the profound anger, confusion, guilt, weariness, and despair this issue triggers in vegans – vegans whose commitment and compassion never cease to astound and inspire me. So I could not, in good conscience, avoid contemplating this issue and sharing my reflections.

Much has been written about the content of the issue – the specific ideas and arguments that comprise each position. In fact, virtually all that has been discussed in regard to the “debate” is content-based, and one would be hard-pressed to find new content to add to a “debate” that has been at a stalemate since its inception. So I am not going to argue for a position here, but, rather, suggest a different way of thinking about this issue – a reframe that I hope will help free up some energy that’s been spent in a gridlock, so that our lives are more peaceful and our activism is more effective.

What I suggest is that we turn our attention from the content to the process of the issue. 

 

CONTINUE READING

 

 

Please visit www.carnism.com to read about the amazing work Dr. Melanie Joy is doing to create other types of dialogues. 

 

Dr. Melanie Joy also covered this topic when she spoke with ARZone recently HERE. 

 

 

Originally Posted at One Green Planet

[Ellie Maldonado]

Hi Spencer,

Beyond providing palliative care while suspending useless medical intervention for terminally ill or injured individuals (passive euthanasia), I see nothing humane about killing.  The most that can be said about painless methods of capital punishment and animal slaughter is that they are less cruel, but that doesn't make them humane.

Although lethal injection was promoted and considered "humane", opposition to the death penalty is based on "cruel and unusual punishment".  So as I said, the opposition requires a rejection of the belief that capital punishment can be "humane". 

Thanks for the link to "Peter Singer Under Fire".

 
Spencer Lo said:

Hey Ellie. I fully agree that some strategies work towards abolition and others do not, and among the strategies that do work, some are wholly immoral (e.g., blowing up the planet, which would end all  forms of exploitation). But this common usage of "abolitionist" is value neutral, which I think is an advantage: there would be no longer any reason to bicker about mere labels (Melanie Joy's point), and it would allow participants to focus exclusively on the underlying strategic issues -- the real debate. 

About capital punishment (and animal farming), the term "humane" is often the source of great confusion. "Humane killing" can mean one of two things: 1) painless killing, or 2) painless killing that is morally permissible. (1) does not imply (2), and so while I agree that abolition requires the rejection of the belief that execution can be "humane" in sense (2), it does not require the rejection of the belief that execution can be "humane" in sense (1). As a factual matter, it's true that executions (and animal killing) can be "humane" in sense (1); the real (ethical) question is whether they can be "humane" in sense (2). I suspect that the distinction between the two senses of word is regularly conflated in passionate discussions.

Btw, if I could recommend another book by Peter Singer (one I'm currently reading), it would be "Peter Singer Under Fire: The Moral Iconoclast Faces His Critics." Review here: http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24252-peter-singer-under-fire-the-moral-ico...

[Spencer Lo]

Hi Ellie,

I believe you are understanding "humane" in the morally loaded sense to mean "morally acceptable," such that "humane killing" would imply that it is morally okay. Understood this way, I completely agree that executions and animal slaughter aren't "humane"--for I do not think they're morally acceptable. "Humane," in this sense, isn't synonymous with "painless killing," but I believe the two are often conflated.

[Spencer Lo]

Francione believes finds the notion that carnism exploits vegans and non-vegans alike "profoundly absurd nonsense" (fb comment). Over at Opposing Views, I wrote:

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

Professor Francione believes that the notion that carnism exploits vegans and non-vegans alike is “profoundly absurd nonsense” (quoting fb comment), akin to saying that racism exploits racists. But is it absurd nonsense? On the contrary: I believe the underlying idea is simply that carnism harms everyone, in a similar way that racism harms everyone—*both* victims and perpetrators. This idea is amply supported in the academic literature. From “Do Racists Attitudes Harm the Community Health Including Both the Victims and Perpetrators? A Multi-Level Analysis”:

“While racism unquestionably harms the health of victims, our findings suggest that it impacts the health of those who hold racist beliefs, as well as the broader communities within which they have or had lived. We also find a significant interaction effect between racist a

ttitudes and community level poverty.”.
http://paa2012.princeton.edu/papers/122533

Similarly with carnism, *everyone* is harmed: “the trillions of farmed animals who remain out of sight and therefore conveniently out of public consciousness; the increasingly degraded environment; the exploited and often brutalized meat packers and slaughterhouse workers; and the human consumers who are at increased risk for some of the most serious diseases of the industrialized world and who have been conditioned to disconnect, psychologically and emotionally, from the truth of their experience when it comes to eating animals.”.

Rather than “profoundly absurd nonsense,” the insight that Professor Francione fails to see is simply profound and powerful.

[Ellie Maldonado]

Hi Spencer,

I'm seeing "humane" from the perspective of the victim (human or nonhuman) who wants to live, because I think violating the victim's interest in his/her well being is what makes harming and killing immoral.  Granted, some human animals don't want to live, but I would never endorse active euthanasia, as I think it's a slippery slope which would be misused.   

Animal industry and animal control have co-opted the term "humane" to make killing appear acceptable when it's relatively painless, just as eugenicists co-opted the term "euthanasia" as a euphemism for murder, and animal control makes use of that too.   But there's a difference between what's truly humane and just less cruel; and true euthanasia applies only to the hopelessly sick or injured. 

In the interest of justice, I think we must refuse to co-operate with the misuse of these terms.  Animal advocates, in particular, should reject the idea that it can be "humane" to kill nonhumans.    
 
Spencer Lo said:

Hi Ellie,

I believe you are understanding "humane" in the morally loaded sense to mean "morally acceptable," such that "humane killing" would imply that it is morally okay. Understood this way, I completely agree that executions and animal slaughter aren't "humane"--for I do not think they're morally acceptable. "Humane," in this sense, isn't synonymous with "painless killing," but I believe the two are often conflated.

[Spencer Lo]

Melanie Joy's point about "debate" v. "dialogue" is one that personally resonates with me, though I think it's a hard point to articulate (which is probably why many misunderstand it). Over at Mylene's blog, my latest comment:

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

Hi David,

Thanks for commenting. The difference between a “good debate” and a “bad debate”--or Joy’s distinction between “debate” and “dialogue”--is not always obvious from the non-participant’s pov. Rather, we need to distinguish between the process or mentality of “debate” from the participant’s pov and the process or mentality of “debate” from the non-participant’s pov--we’re all familiar with both.  

From the pov of participants, which was Joy’s focus, the distinction between “debate” and “dialogue” is one of attitude: Is my goal or motivation to “destroy” or “annihilate” my opponent’s arguments, while trying to “protect” my own? Or is my goal or motivation to carefully consider, with a conversation partner, the various arguments that can be put forth in favor of competing positions, where there is no personal attachment to any particular argument solely (or largely) because it is *mine* or because I have a personal investment in it? How many us are *truly* capable of regularly engaging in rigorous “dialogue,” especially on passionate issues? If our current political climate is any indication, I’d say “very few.” Again, I’m no exception, but I believe I have enough “debate” experience--specifically online--to be at least *sensitive* to the point that Melanie Joy made. “Debate” can be very ego-empowering, especially when one is good at it, but then it can also make it difficult to distinguish between one’s ego-driven motivations from one’s “enlightened” motivations for “mere rational discussion.”

From the pov of non-participants, the distinction about attitude is similar. Am I eager to see a particular side get “demolished,” “crushed,” “destroyed,” “owned,” “pwned,” or “rhetorically or intellectually humiliated?” Or am I instead eager to see a rigorous exchange where I’m primarily motivated to gain a better understanding of the various issues and competing arguments, so that I can come away more informed?  For me on certain issues, it’s easier to take a “dialogue” attitude when I’m a non-participant, and Professor Francione’s exchanges that you mentioned are good examples. In particular, I found his debate/discussion with Professor Ringach very interesting and informative, and I’m glad it took place (thanks Professor Francione).

So to directly answer your question, from the pov of a non-participant, I found Professor Francione’s debates/discussion interesting and informative--so in that sense I would characterize them as “good.” Does this acknowledgment mean that Melanie Joy was “attacking a straw man?” Not at all, because it does nothing to call into question her observations about “debate” attitude.

Do you believe that her observations about “debate” apply to you or the people you’ve interacted with? If they don’t apply, then she isn’t saying anything of relevance to you, in which case there is no need, on your part, for objection (on *this* particular point); but if they do apply, then she *is* saying something of relevance to you, in which case it would be worth considering how to replace the “debate” attitude with the “dialogue” attitude. Joy’s point resonated with me *precisely* because her observations apply to me, so I found her remarks valuable. I suggest that if most people reading this took the time to engage in a little critical self-reflection, they might agree.

 

[Carolyn Bailey]

I think you're doing a wonderful job over at OV and the other blog site, Spencer. It's very refreshing to read your polite, friendly comments that seem to be asking really important and certainly relevant questions. Thanks for speaking on behalf of so many! 

In Dave's list if debates, he seems to have left this one out, with Erik Marcus. I wonder if he would characterise this debate as a "good debate". 

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/mp3/eriks-diner-2007-02-2...

In regard to Dave's last comment over there, he's not correct about Melanie's essay being an attack on Gary at all. Most of the points Melanie rose in her article were raised in her ARZone podcast the week before her article was published, and that certainly had nothing to do with Gary Francione. 

[Spencer Lo]

Thanks a lot Carolyn. I think David's hostile reaction is probably a greater testament to the relevance of Melanie's essay than anything I could have said.

[Carolyn Bailey]

I think his subsequent comment is greater testament to the reality of THE "Abolitionist Approach" than anything I could have said as well! 

[Spencer Lo]

Linda McKenzie wrote a response to Melanie (praised by Francione): http://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=2241#comments

[Spencer Lo]

Hi Ellie,

I thought about your concern that "humane" has been co-opted to make animal killing more acceptable, and the same is undoubtedly true for words like "compassion," "kindness," "nice" and "animal welfare." But rather than not use those terms at all, it would be better to "take them back," so to speak, to demonstrate that true humane treatment or care, etc, is wholly incompatible with animal slaughter for food. Part of the battle against carnism--a sub-ideology of speciesism--seems to be a battle against linguistic conventions, in a similar way that the LGTB community has taken back the word "gay" and "queer." 

[Carolyn Bailey]

What a shame everything has to be a competition. There seems no chance of rational discourse on this topic when people are being so defensive, and less than honest in their approach. It appears that the attitudes of the people making these comments, and the comments themselves, showcases exactly what Melanie spoke about in her essay. I wonder if they see that as clearly as most others do. 

Spencer Lo said:

Linda McKenzie wrote a response to Melanie (praised by Francione): http://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=2241#comments

[Spencer Lo]

One curious thing I recently noticed about Francione's style of commenting is that he often says things like: "I apologize but I think that the "carnism" position is intellectually vacuous..." and "Forgive me but that is just plain nonsense."

I wonder: what exactly is he apologizing for, and why is he asking for forgiveness? If he isn't really apologizing for anything or asking for forgiveness, why say that? It's probably an unconscious writing habit of his, but he could do without it -- for some might find that annoying.