Point / Counterpoint

P

OINT

By Tom Regan and Gary Francione

A Movement’s Means Create Its Ends

M

X . ▼ J L a n y anim al advocates hold that there really is no difference betw een anim al welfare and anim al rights. O thers claim that while th ere is a d iffe re n c e , a d v a n c in g a n im a l w e lfa re is a n e c e ssa ry prerequisite to advancing anim al rights. G iven eith er assum ption, m any conscientious activists conclude that we m ust support w elfarist m eans in our m arch tow ard anim al rights ends. W e b e lie v e th e s e v ie w s a re m is ta k e n . N ot o n ly are th e p h ilo s o p h ie s o f an im al rig h ts and a n im al w e lfa re s e p a ra te d by irreconcilable differen ces, and not only are the practical reform s grounded in anim al welfare m orally at odds with those sanctioned by the philosophy o f anim al rights, but also the enactm ent o f anim al welfare m easures actually im pedes the achievem ent o f anim al rights. We em phasize at the outset that we do not intend to be critical o f past activ ities o f the m ovem ent o r o f the ad m irab le efforts o f individuals to end anim al suffering. R ather, we are discussing the fu tu re direction o f the m ovem ent as a m atter o f m ovem ent policy, and the cam paigns chosen by the m ovem ent pursuant to that policy.

Fundamental differences There are fundam ental and profound differences betw een the ph ilo so p h y o f anim al w e lfare and th at o f anim al rights. A nim al rights philosophy rests on the recognition o f the m oral inviolability of the individual, both hum an and nonhum an. Just as people o f color do not exist as resources for w hites, or w om en for m en, so other anim als do not exist as resources for hum an beings. The goal o f the anim al rights m ovem ent is nothing less than the total liberation o f nonhum an anim als from hum an tyranny. No one who accepts the philosophy o f anim al rights w ould be satisfied with a continuation o f our society 's rapacious consum ption o f farm anim als, for exam ple, even if these anim als were raised in an e c o l o g i c a ll y s u s ta i n a b l e fa s h io n , a n d w e re t r a n s p o r te d a n d s la u g h te re d “ h u m a n e ly .” A n im a l w e lf a r is ts , by c o n tr a s t, are com m itted to the pursuit o f “gentle usage.” T hey believe it m orally perm issible to use nonhum ans for hum an benefit, but think hum ans should try to “ m inim ize” suffering. Thus, w hereas w elfarists seek to reform current practices of anim al exploitation, w hile retaining such e x p lo i t a t i o n in p r i n c i p l e , r i g h ts a d v o c a te s o p p o s e a ll s u c h exploitation in principle and seek to abolish all such exploitation in practice. R ecognition o f the m oral inviolability o f individual anim als not only helps shape the ends that the anim al rights m ovem ent seeks, it should also help articulate the m orally acceptable m eans that m ay be used. A nd this is im p o rtan t. M any anim al rig h ts p e o p le w ho d is a v o w th e p h ilo s o p h y o f a n im a l w e lfa r e b e lie v e th e y c a n consistently support reform ist m eans to abolition ends. This view is m istaken, we believe, for m oral, practical, and conceptual reasons.

40

Moral concerns T he view that anim al w elfare m eans can be used to achieve anim al rights ends rests on unsu p p o rted , im p lau sib le sp ecu latio n about the future. For exam ple, why should w e believe that m aking “anim al m odel” research m ore “ hum ane” will persuade people in the future to stop using nonhum an anim als in research? W hy not draw the opposite conclusion— nam ely, that the “ hum ane” exploitation o f nonhum an anim als will lead to the indefinite perpetuation o f such exploitation? By analogy, w hy think that perm itting “ gentler” rape or “ m ore h u m a n e ” sla v e ry w o u ld lead to the a b so lu te p ro h ib itio n a g ain st rape and the to tal a b o litio n o f slav ery ? C learly , w hen so m uch depends upon beliefs about the future, a m inim al respect for ra tio n a lity d e m a n d s m o re th an a m in im a l a m o u n t o f e m p iric a l support. The thesis that reform ist m eans will lead to abolitionist ends is entirely lacking in ju st such support. M o re th a n t r o u b li n g , a r e f o r m i s t r e s p o n s e to a n im a l oppression is m orally in co n sisten t w ith the p h ilosophy o f anim al rights. A dvocates of this philosophy m ust reject the idea that the end j u s t i f i e s th e m e a n s ; t h u s , th e y m u s t r e f u s e to s u p p o r t th e institutionalized exploitation o f som e nonhum an anim als to d a y, no m atter how “ hum ane,” in the hope that other anim als will benefit in the fu tu r e . S ince re fo rm ist m ea su re s n e c e ssa r ily a u th o riz e such e x p lo ita tio n (th is is true by d e fin itio n ), c o n siste n t anim al rights advocates cannot support them .

Practical concerns T he b e lie f that m aking anim al exploitation m ore “ h u m an e” through legislation now will help end it in the future is m istaken for a se c o n d re aso n : th e real w o rld d o e s n ’t w ork th at w ay. F o r an exam ple we need look no further than the federal A nim al W elfare Act. M any o f the supporters o f the 1985 am endm ents to the AW A a rg u e d th a t th e y w e re s im p ly o n e ste p in th e s tr u g g le to en d vivisection. It is clear in hindsight that these expectations have rem ained m is e r a b ly u n f u l f il l e d . R a th e r th a n h a s t e n i n g th e d e m is e o f v i v is e c t io n , th e a m e n d m e n ts f o r t i f i e d it t h r o u g h e x p li c it C ongressional recognition o f its legitim acy, and gave vivisectors an ostensibly strong law to point to w hen questioned about abuse o f a n im a ls in la b o ra to rie s. F o r e x a m p le , in a re ce n t N e w E n g la n d Journal o f M edicine article, vivisectors, pointing to the A W A and its am endm ents, state that the public need not be concerned about the tre a tm e n t o f a n im a ls b e c a u se “ [ t]h e re are strin g e n t re g u la tio n s , [which] carry the force o f federal law, governing the care and use o f anim als in m edical research.” W hat the authors do not point out— and w hat the A m erican pu b lic does not kn o w — is that the A W A prohibits “ unnecessary” anim al suffering, but leaves to the exclusive

The Animals' Agenda

January/February 1992

d is c r e tio n o f v iv is e c to r s th e d e te rm in a tio n o f w h a t c o n s titu te s “necessity.” M oreover, as a result of the am endm ents, w hich require that each research facility have an Institutional A nim al C are and Use C o m m itte e , v iv is e c to rs now a rg u e th at the c o m m itte e s p ro v id e a n im a ls p r o t e c ti o n e q u iv a l e n t to th a t p r o v id e d by h u m a n e x p erim e n tatio n review co m m itte es. W hat the v iv isec to rs do not m e n tio n , h o w e v e r, is th a t h u m an e x p e rim e n ta tio n re q u ire s the in fo r m e d c o n se n t o f th e h u m a n s u b je c t— a c ru c ia l c o n c e p t th at cannot be applied in the context o f anim al experim entation— and that th e s e c o m m itte e s a re c o m p o s e d a lm o s t e x c l u s i v e l y o f o th e r vivisectors who for the m ost part “rubber stam p” what the vivisector wants. Sm all w onder, then, that m any activists w ho w orked for the 1985 am endm ents to the A W A now realize that the AW A serves as a m ost c o n v en ien t tool in the b io m e d ic a l in d u s try ’s bag o f p u b lic relations tricks. W e sh o u ld add th a t a n im a l rig h ts a d v o c a te s w ho su p p o rt anim al w elfare m eans are playing into the hands o f the biom edical e s ta b lis h m e n t’s c u rre n t stra te g y o f p o rtra y in g th is “ te m p o ra ry ” acceptance o f anim al w elfare as p ro o f o f the “d ish o n e sty ” o f the anim al rig h ts m o v em en t. In a re ce n tly p u b lish e d a rtic le , P atrick C oncannon o f C ornell V eterinary School argues that anim al rights advocates often support w elfarist reform s, but “ are not bound by any m o ral re q u ire m e n t to be tru th fu l a b o u t th e ir u ltim a te g o a ls and intentions.” T he anim al rights m ovem ent m ust be careful to ensure that these untruths do not succeed in creating an im pression o f the m ovem ent as dishonest in any sense.

Conceptual concerns

Animal rights activism

The b elief that anim al w elfare reform s advance the cause of anim al rights is also m istaken conceptually. A s long as hum ans have rig h ts a n d n o n h u m a n s d o n o t, as is th e c a s e in th e w e lf a r is t fram ew ork, then nonhum ans w ill virtually alw ays lose w hen their interests conflict w'ith hum an interests.

January/February 1992

T hus w elfare reform s, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace at w hich anim al rights goals are achieved. In order to understand this point, we need to rem ind ourselves o f the nature o f rights. In the ordinary course, rights are not subject to violation sim ply because others will benefit from that violation. For exam ple, under the U.S. C o n stitu tio n , people enjoy a right to liberty that m ay n o t be v io la ted w ith o u t due p ro c ess. T h is rig h t, a m o n g o th e rs , p re v e n ts p e o p le fro m b e in g u se d in b io m e d ic a l experim ents against th eir w ill— even w hen such use w ould produce substantial benefits for m any other people. T he w hole purpose o f a right is to act as a b a rr ie r o f so rts b e tw e e n the rig h th o ld e r and everyone else. In o u r society at the present tim e, and indefin itely into the fu tu re u n d e r th e w e lfa ris t fra m e w o rk , o n ly p e o p le h av e rig h ts enforceable by law. A nim als are regarded as the property o f hum ans, and rather than having rights, anim als are alm ost alw ays regarded as the object o f the exercise o f rights on the part o f hum ans. W hen w e confront a situation in w hich hum an and nonhum an interests conflict, we should attem pt to balance those interests, but, under the anim al w elfare fram ew o rk , w e b alan ce tw o very d issim ila r interests: the interest o f the nonhum an anim al, w ho is regarded as property and the o b jec t o f the e x e rc ise o f hu m an rig h ts (u su a lly p ro p e rty rig h ts), a g a in st the in te rest o f the hu m an rig h th o ld e r. A nd the a n im a l is alm ost alw ays bound to lose because by w eighing the hum an right so heavily, a presum ption in favor o f exploitation is created. T hus the m oral fram ew ork established by the anim al w elfare p hilosophy g u arantees that n o nhum an a nim als w ill alm ost alw ays lose w hen their interests are balanced against the claim s o f hum an rights. T his m oral fram ew ork can only serve to im pede anim al rights.

M any anim al advocates will agree w ith us up to this point, but w ill th e n m a k e th e f a m i l ia r c h a r g e : “ W e c a n n o t e n d a n im a l

The Animals' Agenda

Continued on next page 41

Walt Taylor

Continued from previous page e x p lo itatio n o v e rn ig h t. W e m u st tak e th in g s one ste p at a tim e, and we m ust be c o n te n t w ith the re fo rm o f the sy stem . T h e ab o litio n ist p h i l o s o p h y w o u l d h a v e u s d o n o t h i n g , a n d w e n e e d to d o so m e th in g ." T h is c h a r g e r e s ts o n a m i s u n d e r s ta n d i n g . It is p e r f e c tl y c o n siste n t w ith th e p h ilo s o p h y o f a n im a l rig h ts to ta k e a g ra d u a l a p p ro ac h to end anim al e x p lo itatio n . It is ju s t that the step s th at need to be tak en m u st th em se lv es be a b o litio n ist in natu re. W hat w ould such a b o litio n ist steps be like? H ere arc o n ly a few ex am p les: an end to the D raize, L D 50, and all o th e r to x ic ity and irritancy tests; an en d to the use o f a n im a ls in p ro d u c t testin g ; an end to the use o f a n im a ls in m a te rn a l d e p riv a tio n , m ilita ry , a n d d ru g a d d ic tio n ex p erim e n ts; an en d to c o m m e rc ial w h a lin g ; an end to the killin g o f e le p h an ts, rh in o s, and o th e r “ big g a m e ” ; and an end to the co m m e rc e in fur. A s far as the b illio n s o f a n im a ls used fo r food are c o n c e rn e d , the a b o litio n ist m ea n s is fo u n d in e d u c a tio n . T h o se w h o a d v o c a te a n im a l rig h ts m u st s e iz e th e v e g a n in itia tiv e th a t c o n te m p o ra r y society, for a v ariety o f re aso n s, p re sen ts to th em . A m e ric a n s are, in un p re ce d en te d n u m b ers, p re p are d to sto p e atin g n o n h u m an an im a ls and a n im al b y p ro d u c ts , an d the a d v o c a te s o f a n im a l rig h ts sh o u ld direct th eir tim e an d e ffo rt to g e ttin g th o se ra n k s to sw ell th ro u g h e d u c a ti o n a n d r a ti o n a l p e r s u a s i o n . A “ N o v e a l a t a n y m e a l ” c am p aig n , not “ E at h a p p y veal raised in larg e r so cial u n its,” is the realistic a b o litio n ist place to begin.

Abolitionist philosophy divisive? S o m e a c tiv ists m ig h t o b jec t that the d e m a n d fo r a b o litio n ist “p u rity ” w ill “ d iv id e ” the anim al rig h ts m o v em e n t an d th ere b y slow its p r o g r e s s . S o m e h a v e e v e n g o n e s o fa r a s to d e n ig r a d e th e p h ilo s o p h y , w h ic h w e a lo n g w ith m a n y th o u s a n d s o f g ra s s ro o ts a ctivists e sp o u se , as the “ new fu n d a m e n ta lis m .” T h is is, in o u r view , a n u n f a ir , h a r m f u l p e r j o r a t i o n o f a s e r i o u s , w e l l - d e v e l o p e d p h ilo s o p h y , and re p re s e n ts th e ty p e o f rh e to ric a l e x c e s s a c tiv is ts have le a rn e d to e x p e c t fro m im a g e -m a k e rs in th e e m p lo y o f th e A m erican M edical A sso c ia tio n o r the A m e ric a n F arm B u re au , but not from p e rso n s c o m m itte d to w o rk in g to a d v a n c e the stru g g le fo r a n im al rig h ts. T h e s e issu e s to o n e sid e , w e b e lie v e th a t a c le a re r u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e tw o p h ilo s o p h ie s — a n im a l rig h ts an d a n im a l w e lfa re — c o u p le d w ith the d e te rm in a tio n to w o rk fo r a b o litio n is t m ean s to ab o litio n ist e n d s, d o e s not d iv id e peo p le o th erw ise united by th e ir c o m m itm e n t to a n im a l rig h ts ; ra th e r, it s e rv e s to c la rify

42

w h e th e r any unity e x is ts in the first p lac e. T h e a c c e p ta n c e o f o u r p o s itio n d o e s n o t m e a n th a t a n im a l a d v o c a te s— w h e th e r a d h e re n ts o f a n im al rig h ts o r a n im a l w e lfare , o r o th e rs— m u st be at c o n sta n t w a r w ith o n e a n o th e r, o r that th o se w h o a d v o ca te anim al rig h ts sh o u ld strik e a “ h o lie r th an th o u ” po se. T h e re is p le n ty o f ro o m f o r j u s t if i e d h u m ility b y e v e r y o n e , p le n ty o f o p p o rtu n itie s fo r d isp la y in g to le ra n c e a n d p a tie n c e to w a rd p e o p le w h o a re j u s t b e g in n in g to th in k a b o u t th e is s u e s , a n d p le n ty o f o c ca sio n s c allin g fo r c o o p e ra tio n a m o n g the p a rtisa n s o f c o n flic tin g p h ilo s o p h ie s , fro m e d u c a tin g th e p u b lic a b o u t h o w b a d ly o th e r a n im a ls are trea te d , to jo in in g fo rce s on sp e c ific a ctio n s, su c h as the H e g in s p ig eo n sh o o t, o p p o sitio n to p a rtic u la rly e g re g io u s re sea rc h , stu d e n ts rig h ts in the c la ssro o m , a n d a n ti-fu r c am p a ig n s. B ut it is o u r v iew th at a n im a l r ig h ts o rg a n iz a tio n s sh o u ld p u rsu e a n im a l rig h ts c a m p a ig n s, an d n o t sp e n d th e ir h u m a n and e c o n o m ic re so u rc e s on p ro je c ts th a t seek to p ro m o te th e w e lfa re b u t d o not v in d ic a te the rig h ts o f n o n h u m an s. T h e p u rp o s e o f o u r re m a rk s is n o t in te n d e d in an y w a y to d isp a rag e th e e ffo rts o f p e o p le w h o p e rfo rm a cts o f k in d n ess tow 'ard a n im a ls. P e o p le c an c le a rly h e lp a n im a ls e v en th o u g h th e y d o not sh a re th e rig h ts p e rsp e c tiv e . W e are ta lk in g h e re a b o u t th e fu tu re d ire c tio n o f th e a n im a l rig h ts m o v e m e n t, a n d a lth o u g h w e v a lu e th o se in d iv id u a l a c ts o f k in d n e s s th a t re su lt in the a m e lio ra tio n o f anim al su ffe rin g , th e m o v e m e n t sim p ly c an n o t a ffo rd to fo rm u la te its p h ilo s o p h ie s , p o lic ie s , s tra te g ie s , a n d c a m p a ig n s so th a t e v e ry o n e w h o h a s a n y c o n c e r n fo r a n im a ls w ill b e a b le to a g r e e o n th e p rin c ip le s in fo rm in g an d d ire c tin g the m o v em e n t. T o d o so w o u ld be to a d o p t v iew s th at are so bro ad as to be m e a n in g le ss , and that w o u ld fru strate , ra th e r th an fo rw a rd , the a c h ie v e m e n t o f an im al rig h ts go als. T h e re w ill a lw a y s b e o r g a n iz a tio n s e s p o u s in g a m o d e ra te w e lfarist m essa g e, w h o se p rim a ry aim w ill be a ttra c tin g th o se p eo p le w h o h a v e a g e n u in e c o n c e r n fo r a n im a ls b u t w h o . fo r w h a te v e r re aso n , do not a cc ep t th e rig h ts p o sitio n . T h o se o rg a n iz a tio n s se rv e a v a lu a b le role in p ro v id in g a n ich e for su c h p e o p le , w h o o fte n e v o lv e to a cc ep t a rig h ts a p p ro ac h . T h o se g ro u p s, h o w e v e r, are not a n im a l rig h ts o rg a n iz a tio n s, and in d eed they o ften q u ite e x p lic itly d isa v o w th e rig h ts p o sitio n . O v e r th e p a st se v e ra l y e a rs , so m e g ro u p s th at o n ce a d v o c a te d anim al rig h ts a p p e a r to have b a c k e d aw ay from that p o s i t io n , c la i m i n g th a t th e y m u s t h a v e a p o s i t io n th a t w ill b e c o m f o r t a b l e f o r e v e r y o n e w h o w a n ts to h e lp a n im a ls . B u t n o o rg a n iz a tio n c an be all th in g s to all p e o p le ; in d ee d , a d v o c a tin g an ap p ro ac h that e v e ry o n e can live w ith is su b s ta n tia lly c e rta in to result in a p o sitio n that w ill ap p eal to the low est c o m m o n d e n o m in a to r, and that w ill e n su re th at anim al rig h ts w ill re m a in an u n a tta in a b le ideal.

The Animals' Agenda

January/February 1992

The larger social context T h e p h i lo s o p h y o f a n im a l r ig h ts v ie w s th e s y s te m a tic exploitation o f anim als as a sym ptom o f a society that tolerates the s y s te m a tic e x p lo ita tio n o f “ th e o th e r ,” in c lu d in g th o se h u m a n “ o t h e r s ” w h o la c k th e e c o n o m ic a n d o t h e r m e a n s to r e s i s t oppression. T hus, the philosophy o f anim al rights necessarily calls for hum an, not only anim al, liberation; by contrast, the philosophy o f anim al w elfare neither addresses nor advocates why and how justice for hum ans is to be achieved. T he philosophy o f anim al rights is an inclusive philosophy. R ig h ts fo r n o n h u m a n s o n ly m a k e s e n s e if w e a c c e p t th e to ta l in c lu s io n o f o u r h u m a n s is te r s a n d b r o th e r s as fu ll a n d e q u a l m em bers o f the extended hum an fam ily, w ithout regard to race, sex, e c o n o m ic s t a tu s , r e li g i o u s p e r s u a s i o n , d i s a b i l i t y , o r s e x u a l

preference. T hus the philosophy o f anim al rights entails far reaching social change. A nim al liberation is hum an liberation. T he philosophy o f anim al rights illum inates w hy this is. But it is no less true that hum an liberation is anim al liberation. T o believe in and w ork fo r our oppressed and exploited brothers and sisters in fur and feather and fin com m its anim al rights activists to b elieving in and w orking for o u r o p p re sse d b ro th e rs an d sis te rs in h u m a n flesh . P e rh a p s o u r m ovem ent has not yet arrived at this degree o f inclusion, but in our view , such inclusion is the goal to w hich our m ovem ent m ust aspire. T o m R e g a n , p r o f e s s o r o f p h ilo s o p h y a t N o r th C a r o lin a S ta te U niversity a n d a uthor o f T he C ase for A nim al R ights, is p re sid e n t o f the C ulture a n d A nim als F oundation, 3 5 0 9 E den C roft D r., R aleigh, N C 27612. G ary F rancione is p ro fe sso r o f law a t R utgers U niversity S c h o o l o f L a w , a n d d ir e c to r o f th e R u tg e r s A n im a l R ig h ts L a w Clinic, 15 W ashington St., N ew ark, N J 07102.

C

OUNTERPOINT

By Ingrid Newkirk

w,

Total Victory, Like Checkmate, Cannot Be Achieved in One Move

Walt Taylor

ith only an idea o f w hat the “ P oint” piece will say (it was not available for m e to see), I doubt my com m entary can fairly be called a “C ounterpoint,” because, like T om and G ary, I hold dear the vision o f a w orld in w hich other-than-hum an beings are respected to the fullest.

January/February 1992

T his is a m ost unrealistic view , o f course, because no one has y e t b e e n a b le to re a s o n , b u lly , o r c a jo le h u m a n b e in g s o u t o f w arm ongering against one another, or even stealing from , cheating, and undercutting their ow n friends and relatives. (T ake, for exam ple, the pettiness o f group rivalries, and the energy w asted arguing over

The Animals' Agenda

Continued on next page 43