Gary Francione

Francione in 2009: pity the vegan dogs

Thinking hardly or hardly thinking? Philosophy

Major trains of thought

Logic Morality Reality

The good, the bad, and the brain fart

Existentialism Omnipotence paradox Qualia Cornel West Paleolibertarianism Sophistry Herbert Marcuse Fallibilism

Come to think of it

Religion Science Philosophy of science Ethics Psychology v - t - e

Gary L. Francione (1954–) is an American philosopher, professor of law at Rutgers University, and a controversial figure in animal rights. He has authored numerous books, one of the most famous of which is Rain Without Thunder (1996), and maintains a website where he details his theory of animal rights in all its facets.

Go vegan!

The cornerstone of Francione's theory is that all sentient beings have the right not to be used as property, food, clothing, cosmetics etc. As a corollary of this, he declares that veganism is, or should be, the "moral baseline" of the animal rights movement. Not surprisingly, most people don't enjoy hearing that they are living below the moral baseline, and this position has thus put him at odds not just with the general population but also with most other animal activists who criticise his refusal to let anything less than veganism (e.g. vegetarianism) count for anything.

One of the pitfalls of this particular stance is that the damage we do to other animals is by no means limited to our consumption and use of them: just about every aspect of modern life causes harm to other animals and the environment. This includes even the cultivation and consumption of plant-based foods, which, while (probably) less damaging overall than cultivating animal-based foods, still involves the killing of small animals by harvesters, or the displacement of wildlife. This fact does not invalidate veganism's effectiveness in reducing the harm we do, but it does rather undermine efforts to make veganism into an absolute dividing line between the decent and the depraved: might the bar not just as logically be set at, for instance, superlocavore-veganism or even human extinction?

Francione often ends his articles and videos by telling his audience to go vegan, emphasising that it is incredibly easy. This is a bold move, given that he cannot know for sure whether his audience contains any members for whom it is not easy for whatever reason — and it may well serve to make veganism seem even harder by communicating a lack of empathy for people's individual situations. Hell, even staying vegan can be a challenge according to a report from the Humane Research Council.

All this aside, it is fairly audacious to assume that the average person is going to be receptive to being told "you are obliged to go vegan" rather than, for instance, more gentle encouragement to reduce animal consumption or to make baby steps — which may well reach far greater numbers of people and have a larger overall impact according to a not-insignificant body of research.

Abolition or nothing

Francione writes extensively on the distinction between the abolitionist approach (seeking to end animal use altogether) and the welfarist approach (which is only concerned with improving conditions for the animals we eat and use), criticising the latter as not just meaningless but actively causing us to be complacent about eating and using animals - which he sees as too high a price to pay for the easing of their suffering. He also opposes "single issue campaigns" against live export, jumps racing etc., arguing that to focus on a certain type of animal use as not OK is to implicitly endorse (not just refuse to condemn) all other types of animal use. In fact, evidence shows that welfare reforms do have the effect of reducing animal consumption, and that calls to reduce animal product consumption are as effective as calls for elimination.

However, Francione doesn’t just champion abolitionism, but effectively redefines and acts as a gatekeeper for the term in such a way as to exclude anyone but him and his followers. He has coined a snarl word, "new welfarist", to describe those who support abolitionism but are capable of celebrating any improvement in animal welfare or anyone reducing their meat consumption — Peter Singer and PETA are examples, despite the former having popularised the word "speciesism" in the first place, and the latter's unequivocal statement that "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on or use for entertainment". Even the Vegan Society, founded by the man who coined the term "vegan", gets a hammering for being too permissive.

In short, Francione sees pretty much everyone else in the animal rights movement — a movement he does not consider himself part of — as sell-outs whose activities are less than worthless, detracting from the work of telling everyone to go completely vegan. His harshest criticism is, ironically, reserved for animal rights activists and organisations, not animal industries, which has led some to question his motivations, with one critic citing an eerie similarity between some of his talking points and those of animal industries. Some of his invectives sit somewhat oddly with his stance on nonviolence — for example, he called peace activist Thich Nhat Hanh a "spiritual huckster who simply does not understand nonviolence" for the crime of advocating for people to cut their meat consumption in half. Francione really seems to believe that we would be so much closer to worldwide veganism if all other animal activists and organisations, except for him and his followers, would just go away.

Unfortunately, some of his supporters who try to promote his work - particularly the online "franciobots" as they are sometimes derogatorily called — do so with less civility than he does, assuming a mandate to compare non-vegans to rapists or the Holocaust, or to tell other vegans that they are not really vegan simply for not having the right theory or attitude toward veganism and animal rights, or for sympathising too much with non-vegans. Those who disagree with anything Francione says usually meet with a variation of the Courtier's Reply, asserting that they "don't understand abolitionist theory" and need to read several of Francione's books before being qualified to comment on any statement he makes.

On humans

To Francione's credit, he makes a point of opposing all forms of human discrimination, and calls out animal activists and organisations for exhibiting overt sexism, racism and misanthropy. On the other hand, based on his argument that "the rights of humans and nonhumans are inextricably intertwined", he still resorts to comparing the treatment of non-human animals to the oppression of women or people of color — which, of course, is not at all insensitive or dehumanising to the latter demographics unless you're a speciesist, right?

Francione's definition of intersectionality is also a bit off, which partly explains his dismissal of the intersectional efforts of groups such as Black Vegans Rock. In addition, his exacting standards jar with certain incidents in which he himself has unashamedly used non-inclusive language: one of his favorite buzzwords, "moral schizophrenia", borders on being ableist and insulting to those living with mental illness, and in response to the 2016 political primaries he made quite an insensitive comment about suicide.

Vaccination

See the main article on this topic: Anti-vaccination movement

On the subject of vaccinating children, Francione has said "I don't have any human children; if I did, the last thing I would do, I would fight, I would not vaccinate them. I don't believe in vaccination." Even more alarmingly, this statement was met with applause.

See also

• Animal rights
• Peter Singer
• Speciesism
• Steven Best
• Veganism

External links

• See the Wikipedia article on Gary L. Francione.