Thanks Connor. One way of reducing the risk that "welfarism" just leads us into a dead end where even more sentient beings are being brutally exploited and killed... is to defend the usage and meaning of phrases and words like "high welfare" and "humane" even as we work for incremental improvements. If we allow these words to be applied to any farming and exploitation practices that does risk licensing farming and exploitation more generally as acceptable or moral - removing the motivation for further change. This is the explicit narrative plan of the animal industries. Whereas if we insist that, while there are better and worse forms of animal farming, none are "high welfare" and no slaughterhouse is "humane" - we can leave space open for incremental improvements without losing sight of the end goal. To put this another way, if someone claims to have even a minimal concern for my welfare, for my humane treatment, for my moral consideration, for kindness or compassion towards me - that's simply not consistent with paying someone else to kill me to make products - or with killing me to make products you can sell to others. These moral terms have to retain their meaning if we want to hold on to morality itself.
Do you have a link to where Francione says we shouldn’t use slaughterhouse footage? I knew he was doctrinaire but if his position is really “anything besides asking people to go vegan and expecting them to respond to sophisticated philosophical arguments is speciesist” that just seems silly.
Even if in principle humane farming might be permissable, when animals are seen as commodities the market is unlikely to actually treat them humanely. Farms that are labelled humane and certified, are often exposed as being cruel. So, it seems prudent to not exploit at all.
Much like how I think it might be permissable to farm humans if they are given great lives, but I oppose doing it in the real world because it would be fraught with awful risks.
Also, while I think animals probably don't have rights, I'm not THAT confident. Seems like a big risk for a small gain
However that's not really a worry, because that won't happen. In reality, the demand will slowly drop, and the supply will follow. They'll just stop being bred into existence in the first place
The word humane means treating someone with kindness and compassion. It isn't compatible with farming someone or what happens to all farmed sentient beings in slaughterhouses.
Thanks Connor. One way of reducing the risk that "welfarism" just leads us into a dead end where even more sentient beings are being brutally exploited and killed... is to defend the usage and meaning of phrases and words like "high welfare" and "humane" even as we work for incremental improvements. If we allow these words to be applied to any farming and exploitation practices that does risk licensing farming and exploitation more generally as acceptable or moral - removing the motivation for further change. This is the explicit narrative plan of the animal industries. Whereas if we insist that, while there are better and worse forms of animal farming, none are "high welfare" and no slaughterhouse is "humane" - we can leave space open for incremental improvements without losing sight of the end goal. To put this another way, if someone claims to have even a minimal concern for my welfare, for my humane treatment, for my moral consideration, for kindness or compassion towards me - that's simply not consistent with paying someone else to kill me to make products - or with killing me to make products you can sell to others. These moral terms have to retain their meaning if we want to hold on to morality itself.
Do you have a link to where Francione says we shouldn’t use slaughterhouse footage? I knew he was doctrinaire but if his position is really “anything besides asking people to go vegan and expecting them to respond to sophisticated philosophical arguments is speciesist” that just seems silly.
Correction. Someone once told me he opposed it outright, but it looks like he has merely expressed this as a concern https://www.abolitionistapproach.com/violent-imagery-in-animal-advocacy/
I will edit that part now
I agree that factory farming should be abolished. What's wrong with humane farming?
Even if in principle humane farming might be permissable, when animals are seen as commodities the market is unlikely to actually treat them humanely. Farms that are labelled humane and certified, are often exposed as being cruel. So, it seems prudent to not exploit at all.
Much like how I think it might be permissable to farm humans if they are given great lives, but I oppose doing it in the real world because it would be fraught with awful risks.
Also, while I think animals probably don't have rights, I'm not THAT confident. Seems like a big risk for a small gain
I don't think it would be permissible to farm mentally competent humans.
On your view, what would be done with all the animals?
If we stopped all at once? Not sure.
However that's not really a worry, because that won't happen. In reality, the demand will slowly drop, and the supply will follow. They'll just stop being bred into existence in the first place
The word humane means treating someone with kindness and compassion. It isn't compatible with farming someone or what happens to all farmed sentient beings in slaughterhouses.