What do you think?
Rate this book
Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation
A prominent and respected philosopher of animal rights law and ethical theory, Gary L. Francione is known for his criticism of animal welfare laws and regulations, his abolitionist theory of animal rights, and his promotion of veganism and nonviolence as the baseline principles of the abolitionist movement. In this collection, Francione advances the most radical theory of animal rights to date. Unlike Peter Singer, Francione maintains that we cannot morally justify using animals under any circumstances, and unlike Tom Regan, Francione's theory applies to all sentient beings, not only to those who have more sophisticated cognitive abilities.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published April 30, 2008
11 people are currently reading
486 people want to read
About the author
Gary L. Francione
13 books213 followersA prominent and respected philosopher of animal rights law and ethical theory, Gary L. Francione is known for his criticism of animal welfare laws and regulations, his abolitionist theory of animal rights, and his promotion of veganism and nonviolence as the baseline principles of the abolitionist movement. Unlike Peter Singer, Francione maintains that we cannot morally justify using animals under any circumstances, and unlike Tom Regan, Francione's theory applies to all sentient beings, not only to those who have more sophisticated cognitive abilities.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
May 5, 2012
Gary Francione writes a convincing and accessible argument for the abolitionist theory regarding animal rights. This is a collection of academic articles that have been published in various journals compiled into one book. This means there is a certain degree of repetition between the articles.
His writing is excellent. He uses point-first writing, limited use of the passive voice, and solid organization. Moreover, it is written in a way that can be understood by a broad group of people as it is not overly legalistic.
I would definitely recommend this to everyone. He makes very compelling moral arguments. To briefly summarize his ideas, he argues that sentience should be the sole criteria for admission to the moral community. This is predicated on the idea that any other characteristics would be arbitrary or morally problematic. To illustrate, he notes how many nonhuman animals possess characteristics to a greater degree than some humans (for example some with severe mental disability or infants). This leads to the moral conclusion that we either include nonhuman in the community or exclude incapacitated humans.
Once we recognize that nonhumans should be members of the moral community, he argues this entails that they have the status of legal personhood rather than being treated as property. This entails abolishing all institutionalized exploitation of animals.
The "action" component of his theory (that is to say what we should do once we reach this conclusion) is 1. veganism and 2. working towards abolishing the property status of animals.
This is just a brief outline of his arguments. Each of the chapters is an article and these articles all vary in their specific topics. A few of them specifically address certain theories in the animal rights/liberation/welfare movements.
His writing is excellent. He uses point-first writing, limited use of the passive voice, and solid organization. Moreover, it is written in a way that can be understood by a broad group of people as it is not overly legalistic.
I would definitely recommend this to everyone. He makes very compelling moral arguments. To briefly summarize his ideas, he argues that sentience should be the sole criteria for admission to the moral community. This is predicated on the idea that any other characteristics would be arbitrary or morally problematic. To illustrate, he notes how many nonhuman animals possess characteristics to a greater degree than some humans (for example some with severe mental disability or infants). This leads to the moral conclusion that we either include nonhuman in the community or exclude incapacitated humans.
Once we recognize that nonhumans should be members of the moral community, he argues this entails that they have the status of legal personhood rather than being treated as property. This entails abolishing all institutionalized exploitation of animals.
The "action" component of his theory (that is to say what we should do once we reach this conclusion) is 1. veganism and 2. working towards abolishing the property status of animals.
This is just a brief outline of his arguments. Each of the chapters is an article and these articles all vary in their specific topics. A few of them specifically address certain theories in the animal rights/liberation/welfare movements.
January 3, 2021
I highly recommend this book!
July 8, 2023
4,5/5! Εγείρονται πολλά και σημαντικά ζητήματα με επίκεντρο αφενός την αμφισβήτηση του ιδιοκτησιακού καθεστώτος των ζώων και αφετέρου την πρόταση για την αναγνώρισή τους ως πρόσωπα. Μια πολύ καλή αφετηρία για τα δικαιώματα των ζώων τόσο από ηθική σκοπιά όσο και από την πλευρά της νομικής επιστήμης.
April 11, 2010
As an aspiring vegan, this book was a must read. It introduced to me a clear argument for abolitionist animal rights. I have felt something change in me in the strength and ease of my commitment to living a vegan life as I read Francione's argument and his ideas. It also gives me hope that the world can change and I can be a positive part of that change. :)
October 9, 2021
I do not object to the author's basic conclusion that animals should not be regarded as property. I am even more radical in thinking that plants and animals without perception should not be regarded as property. Any life exists for itself, and no life should be regarded as property. But I have to give the author the lowest score, because the author didn't give a complete and logical argument from the beginning in his book. He accused other theories of relying on common sense and intuition (so these theories are begging questions), but he himself used common sense and intuition as evidence. In fact, the only empirical evidence is the marginal case, but he actually thinks that this case can be used as logical evidence. I even doubt that the author has never studied logic at all. In addition, the content of this book is basically repetitive. I think the author can be called a repeater. The existence of such books is the biggest obstacle to promoting animal protection, because others will think that animal protectors are such fools. The most shameless thing is that in the part about the ethics of care, the author misinterprets and takes it out of context to slander the views of the ethicists of care. Although I don't agree with many views of the ethicists of care, I can't stand the shameless behavior of the author.
The author obviously often maliciously or unintentionally distort the views of others. For example, the author believes that Regan supports the view that animals are subordinate to humans, but Regan clearly stated that he rejects this view (Regan described this view in order to accuse it, but the author interprets (distort) the description directly as support). In addition, his criticism of Regan's view of comparable harm is basically based on two kinds of ignorance, that is, 1. the inability to distinguish between intrinsic value and instrumental value, and 2. the belief that there is only one value, the benefit.
I reiterate that I have no opinion on the author's conclusion, and I even support it very much, and think it should be expanded. My opinion on the author is purely aimed at the author’s bad habits of the sophists: misinterpretation, slander, and out of context.
The author obviously often maliciously or unintentionally distort the views of others. For example, the author believes that Regan supports the view that animals are subordinate to humans, but Regan clearly stated that he rejects this view (Regan described this view in order to accuse it, but the author interprets (distort) the description directly as support). In addition, his criticism of Regan's view of comparable harm is basically based on two kinds of ignorance, that is, 1. the inability to distinguish between intrinsic value and instrumental value, and 2. the belief that there is only one value, the benefit.
I reiterate that I have no opinion on the author's conclusion, and I even support it very much, and think it should be expanded. My opinion on the author is purely aimed at the author’s bad habits of the sophists: misinterpretation, slander, and out of context.
March 21, 2018
Having read this, I feel as if I understand the abolitionist position regarding the treatment of nonhuman animals much better, and find I agree with most of it. I'm glad abolitionists have such an articulate advocate as Francione. That said, though, he tends toward repetition, and seems disinclined to use concrete examples more than occasionally. Additional examples would make the writing less dry and academic. I would still recommend this, however, to someone seeking to understand differing viewpoints about animal advocacy.
June 29, 2023
Our moral discourse about the human- nonhuman relationship seeks to resolve conflicts between humans and animals. But we create these conflicts in the first place by bringing animals into existence for the sole purpose of killing them or otherwise using them exclusively as means to our ends[...] We should, of course, care for those domestic nonhumans who are here now as the result of our commodification of animals, but we should stop causing more, including dogs, cats, and other animals used as companions, to come into existence.
damn Francione ran smack into the point face-first there, but missed it anyway ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
October 24, 2017
drags towards the end as the last quarter is pretty repetitive and makes the book feel less like a coherent narrative and more like a collection, which the majority of the book manages to avoid - but a bible nonetheless.
March 30, 2018
In this book Gary Francione explores further the same themes he has developed in elsewhere, such as An Introduction to Animal Rights. This is a good book that further clarifies Francione’s ideas. It’s the same basic principle, repeated over and over again: animals should not be property. Animals are not ours to eat, wear, or use. Following this, he then launches out to attack anyone and anything not adhering to his principle, which he calls (elsewhere) “the abolitionist approach.”
It’s not a bad book to start with, if you’ve never encountered Francione’s ideas, but his books tend to be a bit dry. If you’ve seen Francione’s YouTube videos or his talks in person, you will notice that he’s really at his best in his oral presentations (interviews and talks) and when he’s doing polemics. It’s anything but dry. For some people, it’s actually easier to pick up Francione’s ideas via YouTube; you may not agree with him, but he keeps your interest. Other people, by contrast, are turned off by Francione’s curmudgeonly attacks on all animal rights theorists other than himself and his “take no prisoners” approach to debate. They find the books are more approachable. I found myself in the latter group and while before I had found his polemics slightly irritating, I was pleasantly and favorably surprised by this book and An Introduction to Animal Rights. This guy actually has some good ideas. Yes, there are still polemics, but it sounds so much more reasonable when you see it in print.
Incidentally, in Francione’s defense, this book makes clear that he DOES support incremental change in some cases, so he’s not averse to compromise. But the incremental changes must somehow restrict property rights of animal owners, e. g. a prohibition of leg-hold traps that does not end hunting, as opposed to a “humane” trap of some sort.
This, and a YouTube video of Francione’s that specifically addressed backyard chickens, actually clarified the whole problem of backyard chickens for me. I found that I agreed with Francione. Earlier, when I articulated my opposition to such ordinances, I couldn’t quite articulate why. Francione’s approach is that ordinances allowing backyard chickens actually EXTEND human property rights over animals and help perpetuate the factory farm system. At best it does this in a way that is slightly more “humane” but still leaves the human right to do anything they want to a chicken intact, and in fact extends it into local property owners in their backyards. So I recommend this book as a further exploration of the approach that wants to abolish property rights over animals.
It’s not a bad book to start with, if you’ve never encountered Francione’s ideas, but his books tend to be a bit dry. If you’ve seen Francione’s YouTube videos or his talks in person, you will notice that he’s really at his best in his oral presentations (interviews and talks) and when he’s doing polemics. It’s anything but dry. For some people, it’s actually easier to pick up Francione’s ideas via YouTube; you may not agree with him, but he keeps your interest. Other people, by contrast, are turned off by Francione’s curmudgeonly attacks on all animal rights theorists other than himself and his “take no prisoners” approach to debate. They find the books are more approachable. I found myself in the latter group and while before I had found his polemics slightly irritating, I was pleasantly and favorably surprised by this book and An Introduction to Animal Rights. This guy actually has some good ideas. Yes, there are still polemics, but it sounds so much more reasonable when you see it in print.
Incidentally, in Francione’s defense, this book makes clear that he DOES support incremental change in some cases, so he’s not averse to compromise. But the incremental changes must somehow restrict property rights of animal owners, e. g. a prohibition of leg-hold traps that does not end hunting, as opposed to a “humane” trap of some sort.
This, and a YouTube video of Francione’s that specifically addressed backyard chickens, actually clarified the whole problem of backyard chickens for me. I found that I agreed with Francione. Earlier, when I articulated my opposition to such ordinances, I couldn’t quite articulate why. Francione’s approach is that ordinances allowing backyard chickens actually EXTEND human property rights over animals and help perpetuate the factory farm system. At best it does this in a way that is slightly more “humane” but still leaves the human right to do anything they want to a chicken intact, and in fact extends it into local property owners in their backyards. So I recommend this book as a further exploration of the approach that wants to abolish property rights over animals.
March 9, 2012
Francine writes a very convincing argument promoting veganism and the necessity for a change in the legal status of animals as property. This book is a must for those thinking about going vegan as well as for those skeptics who don't understand why anyone would want to. In particular, Francione's belief that the
animal welfare movement tends to do more harm than good on a wider scale is a defining factor in the split between animal rights activists, so anyone interested in these arguments would benefit from the read.
animal welfare movement tends to do more harm than good on a wider scale is a defining factor in the split between animal rights activists, so anyone interested in these arguments would benefit from the read.
July 20, 2014
I like what Francione has to say... but all these essays are reprints, and they all basically say the same thing. Sadly, not worth the insane 40$ they're charging! Get it at the library if you must read it!! :)
The most interesting essays -- same rehashing but with a few new ideas -- were at the end of the book.
The most interesting essays -- same rehashing but with a few new ideas -- were at the end of the book.
May 9, 2011
Convincing but repetitive. Man, I don't wanna be a vegan! I know I should! But I don't wanna!
July 14, 2015
Essays that would no doubt be enjoyed by an insufferable, needlessly inflammatory, unbelievably fatuous Morrissey-type. But he's not entirely wrong.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews