Proposition 2: Some Thoughts
The “Standards for Confining Farm Animals” initiative statute, or Proposition 2, California, passed 63% for to 37% against. Prop. 2,
“prohibits the confinement of certain farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.”
Specifically, three confinement methods - veal crates, battery cages, and sow gestation crates - will come under review, and in the case of battery cages, will be eliminated. I view this result with both a sense of profound internal relief and trepidation.
On my relief. “Building momentum” towards abolishing certain practices, to borrow from Wayne Pacelle, seems a plausible result given California’s media market and the proposition’s overwhelming support:
“The historic victory for farm animals builds on momentum established in other US states. Colorado and Arizona are phasing out the use of gestation crates and veal crates, and the states of Florida and Oregon have similar measures phasing out gestation crates. Throughout North America, producers are changing the way they house and care for animals in response to this momentum. Smithfield Foods, the world’s largest pig producer, and Maple Leaf, the largest pig producer in Canada, are phasing-out gestation crates. The American Veal Association voted to urge the entire US veal industry to phase out veal crates.
“By adopting these measures, the United States is moving in the same direction as Europe. The entire European Union is phasing out barren battery cages by 2012 and gestation crates by 2013, and has already banned veal crates. Several European countries already have enacted protections for farm animals that exceed the European Union’s measures.” (source)
And more importantly, I think, as a matter of fact, phasing-out veal crates, for example, does go a significant way towards reducing actual suffering. Those who would challenge this with, “It’s still a violation of rights,” are highly suspect, and I believe allow the abstract to consume the real. Many of us who believe in the philosophy of animal rights often accept our position as moral persons and argue accordingly. “We all have the right to…” becomes our mantra; however, it is from this position that allows us to forget about the 10 individual chickens who are forced to live in a single, barren, wire cage. While we discuss abolition, incremental moves to take those chickens out of the cage and put them on an open floor are derided. I believe this kind of reasoning is derived from our position as non-nonhuman animals. If considered impartially, it seems unreasonable to argue that I, if in the position of a veal cow, wouldn’t want to be removed from the crate and allowed to turn around because this would imply the assumption that it is okay to kill me unnecessarily if I’m only treated properly. I think PETA’s argument that “Animals are not ours to…” sufficiently addresses the ethical need to abolish the animals-as-property paradigm. Welfare legislation, then, framed as such, deals with the here and now of suffering and some of it should be lauded.
On my trepidation (perhaps getting at the reasoning that confuses me). On the premise that every creature’s interest’s ought to be considered morally relevant because of their sentience, the only ethical end is abolition. Incrementalism, then, is instrumentally valuable for the reasons cited above. However, as the argument proffered by abolitionists go, incremental measures to reduce suffering in the present (or near present) may actual prevent this end from being realized.
One such reason, the most plausible I believe, is that when these singular examples - the one’s we generally find the most horrendous - are illuminated, challenged and abolished, the ethical nature of the matter, primarily, nonhuman animals are not things and ought to be considered full members of the moral community, which practically results in veganism, begins to get confused. Our moral responsibility may seem to be absolved once the torture of baby cows in veal crates is gotten rid of and PETA proclaims a “victory.” The end, then, is transformed from veganism to a “happy meat” revolution.
And so it goes, billions of nonhuman animals are still forced to suffer wholly unnecessarily, while the most prevalent reason to go vegan (e.g., the scene of male cows thrashing about as they are castrated without anesthesia) becomes very well hidden. It’s a fiction, of course; the suffering persists; it’s still systematic. However, the industry is now given a label, “Humane Certified,” and the system, and the monster paradigm that justifies it, becomes even more calcified than before.
I don’t know how to resolve this conflict. Welfarism turns on an empirical matter: Do these measures actually reduce suffering? I believe the answer is yes, generally speaking. However, to qualify this “yes,” I must say from reading accounts of “free range” methods, and my knowledge about what happens to the “excess” - baby boy chickens, for example -, these “improvements,” as measured by real suffering, come in degrees not kind. And then there is the problem articulated above.
As such, measuring Proposition 2 becomes a sort of qualified happiness. To the end of abolition, I’m concerned. Saving 20 million creatures from experiencing the most horrendous suffering, I’m forced by conscience to celebrate.
Will be crossposted @ That Vegan Girl
I think it is too bad that some abolitionists have taken the divisive position that pushing for incremental reforms is akin to supporting the welfarist philosophy. It is fairer to say that the abolitionist camp is split regarding methodology. The “all or nothing” abolitionists think that incremental reforms make it easier for the public to accept the “humane” standard claims of the animal exploitation industries and therefore the public is less likely to support total animal liberation. The “incremental” abolitionists think that incremental reforms are an effective means to bring about the ends of total animal liberation.
Both camps (the “all or nothing” abolitionists and “incremental” abolitionists) have the same end goal in mind. Both camps should rightfully be called abolitionists. The “all or nothing” abolitionists should abandon the “welfarist” slur they tend to use against “incrementalists” because this type of misrepresentation is divisive and hurtful to the abolitionist movement. I tend to agree with the “incremental” abolitionist position and dismiss the claims that incremental reforms will not lead to total animal liberation.
The position taken by the industry when incremental reforms are made is predictable. The industry claims that it is following “humane” guidelines when hens are crammed inside battery cages. However, when battery cages are shown to cause tremendous suffering and are then banned, the industry will predictably start lauding “cage-free” as a “humane” standard. This is to be expected because those in the industry want to continue selling their “products.”
Meanwhile, the general public attitude shifts from accepting the use of battery cages to condemning the use of battery cages. Many may then accept the use of cage-free systems that still exploit animals and cause needless suffering. This is to be expected.
However, when animal rights activists then start showing footage of 100,000 hens crammed inside windowless sheds, with death, disease and suffering still rampant, then the next incremental change is on the horizon. Eventually, the public will start to view cage-free systems as cruel and these systems may be banned too.
Next, the industry will claim that allowing hens access to the outdoors is “humane” even though they are still commodified and slaughtered. The public attitude will shift again and cage-free systems will be viewed as cruel and systems which allow access to the outside will be accepted.
It is then the responsibility of abolitionists to point out the cruelty involved in this system. Eventually, the perception of the public regarding what is acceptable and what is not acceptable will shift. Along the way, more and more people will make the connection that it is unacceptable to treat animals as commodities until finally the critical mass needed to usher in a vegan world will be attained. This is the incremental approach.
We should not worry too much that the industry will make “humane” claims along the way or that some members of the public may accept these claims. As public perception continues to shift, the industry will be forced to abandon certain cruel practices and more and more people will be exposed to the animal rights/veganism message. As the movement continues to push for incremental change, so too will it continue to grow in increments until we reach critical mass and the tide of compassion overcomes complacency.
The alternative to the “incremental” approach to the abolitionist philosophy is the “all or nothing” approach to the abolitionist philosophy. The history of the animal rights movement has shown that the “all or nothing” approach has consistently led to nothing. The history of the “incremental” approach has consistently proven to lead to incremental change on the path to total animal liberation.
I appreciate your thoughts, Matt. I think it’s interesting how you divided “abolitionism” into two distinct camps. It follows my own line of reasoning.
~ Recent blog post: "Compassion For All Beings" ~
I agree with you both, I believe, that these incremental improvements do have value to the animals and we should not dismiss them. To object to better treatment of animals for any reason, even for those animals destined to be killed, is not in keeping with my own philosophy that all animals have value for themselves. That old story: “It makes a difference to this one…”
I cannot imagine a world where total abolition happens all on its own with no steps in between. It didn’t even happen in the case of slaves, although it certainly should have given that it was hard to deny that slaves were humans.
When I worked as a planner a popular way of controlling growth of a city was to cite infrastructure and resource limitations. This type limitation can be broken at any time, making it dead in the water. Growth limitations must be based on something more solid and lasting and fundamentally meaningful. Similarly veganism can’t hang its hat on how some animals are treated badly, but rather on the larger concept that animals have rights in and of themselves. Thus the busting of various barriers to humane treatment in no way dilutes the value of being vegan.
~ Recent blog post: Vegan Muffins ~
I’ve just started a critical vegan blog that challenges the rhetoric, dichotomous thinking, and single-issue philosophies of many animal defenders. Here’s my first post that relates to the criticism of incremental abolitionist reforms: http://plantain-asparagus.blogspot.com/
If I ruled the world and could control everyone, I wouldn’t suggest that HSUS and other groups put as much time and money into things like Prop 2. But once they have, given my limited amount of power in ‘the system’ the question becomes “what is ethical for ME to do?”
Clearly, when it comes to human ‘uses’ for animals like food and clothing where there are viable alternatives and no outright human need, the ethical thing to do is go vegan.
When it comes to politics, it’s a bit of a different matter. However, it is not a question of how I expect others to react to my actions, it is not a question of who I support and what methods I condone, it is not a question of politics or law, it is a question of ethics. The ethical response to Prop 2 is either a yes vote or abstaining from voting. There is no way to ethically justify a ‘no’ vote.
The only valid justification I heard against prop 2 was basically just game theory: an unsubstantiated prediction that people will consume more animals if they think “free range” or “cage-free” is humane and moral. That kind of thinking is politics and playing games. That’s not the kind of reasoning you’d hear from an ethicist.
Every life matters. If I have the opportunity to eliminate or reduce suffering with something so simple as a pull of a lever, I ought to take that opportunity.
And here’s another grand opportunity: the proposition doesn’t take effect until 2015. Anyone who thinks that cage-free eggs are humane must concede that current egg farming practices - battery cages - are not humane and if they care about animals at all, they must reduce or eliminate their egg consumption NOW, at least until the act becomes a reality. And… once they’ve taken that first step to creating a new egg-less habit, they just might stay that way after 2015.
Quote:
“The only valid justification I heard against prop 2 was basically just game theory: an unsubstantiated prediction that people will consume more animals if they think “free range” or “cage-free” is humane and moral. That kind of thinking is politics and playing games. That’s not the kind of reasoning you’d hear from an ethicist.
Every life matters. If I have the opportunity to eliminate or reduce suffering with something so simple as a pull of a lever, I ought to take that opportunity.”
That’s brilliant, Eccentric!
It sounds very much like consequentalism, which turns on empirical evidence for the premise. This evidence, in my opinion, is often absent from Mr. Francione’s argument; therefore, I often accept his arguments tentatively.
~ Recent blog post: "Compassion For All Beings" ~