What do you think?
Rate this book
Critical Perspectives on Animals: Theory, Culture, Science, and Law
The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?
Gary L. Francione is a law professor and leading philosopher of animal rights theory. Robert Garner is a political theorist specializing in the philosophy and politics of animal protection. Francione maintains that we have no moral justification for using nonhumans and argues that because animals are property—or economic commodities—laws or industry practices requiring "humane" treatment will, as a general matter, fail to provide any meaningful level of protection. Garner favors a version of animal rights that focuses on eliminating animal suffering and adopts a protectionist approach, maintaining that although the traditional animal-welfare ethic is philosophically flawed, it can contribute strategically to the achievement of animal-rights ends.
As they spar, Francione and Garner deconstruct the animal protection movement in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and elsewhere, discussing the practices of such organizations as PETA, which joins with McDonald's and other animal users to "improve" the slaughter of animals. They also examine American and European laws and campaigns from both the rights and welfare perspectives, identifying weaknesses and strengths that give shape to future legislation and action.
As they spar, Francione and Garner deconstruct the animal protection movement in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and elsewhere, discussing the practices of such organizations as PETA, which joins with McDonald's and other animal users to "improve" the slaughter of animals. They also examine American and European laws and campaigns from both the rights and welfare perspectives, identifying weaknesses and strengths that give shape to future legislation and action.
288 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 2010
4 people are currently reading
317 people want to read
About the author
Gary L. Francione
13 books214 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 - 8 of 8 reviews
October 2, 2011
This is a very dense and quite complex read especially with regard to Garner's arguments which get bogged down in hard ethics. His intellectual opponent, Francione, argues that we must reject the notion that animals are our property (the property paradigm) in order to fully achieve animal rights. He points to numerous failures of the welfare movement and argues that a vegan education campaign is the only way to accomplish the goals of the rights movement. Ultimately suffering incorporates death. Francione's primary concern is that the marginalization of suffering as a result of welfare reform only leads to a stronger argument in favour of consuming meat, what one might refer to as 'conscientious carnivores'. Certainly in my mind the ethical consumption of animals has become an acceptable oxymoron and something of a trend feeding from the popularity of the organic foods movement, though I disagree with Francione's prediction that it will make the eating of meat more widely acceptable among vegetarians.
Garner believes the welfare movement is a stepping stone, rather than an obstruction, to the ending of a reliance on the consumption of animals. It is important to remember that both authors believe the consumption of meat should be abolished, so it seems the argument is no longer if, but when and how. His approach is a pragmatic one which underscores the importance of working within politics that in reality have to concede, conform and compromise. Being more of a pragmatist myself I tended to side with Garner, though he needs to have a clear definition of what suffering is.
For me the most interesting point is the idea that it is the responsibility of society, of law and government, to ban the suffering of animals. Eating meat is a choice but society, not the individual, must be responsible for eliminating suffering irrespective of the general populations thoughts on the matter. In this respect liberalism must be trumped by government.
Garner believes the welfare movement is a stepping stone, rather than an obstruction, to the ending of a reliance on the consumption of animals. It is important to remember that both authors believe the consumption of meat should be abolished, so it seems the argument is no longer if, but when and how. His approach is a pragmatic one which underscores the importance of working within politics that in reality have to concede, conform and compromise. Being more of a pragmatist myself I tended to side with Garner, though he needs to have a clear definition of what suffering is.
For me the most interesting point is the idea that it is the responsibility of society, of law and government, to ban the suffering of animals. Eating meat is a choice but society, not the individual, must be responsible for eliminating suffering irrespective of the general populations thoughts on the matter. In this respect liberalism must be trumped by government.
May 2, 2023
This is a debate between Francione, a legal scholar, and Garner, a political theorist. Their three big disputes are about the moral significance of killing and using animals (rather than their suffering), whether welfare reforms have worked or can work, and whether the animal movement should focus exclusively on vegan moral education, or whether it should also focus on welfare reform.
Frankly, Francione performed much better than Garner in this discussion. I'm not sure that Garner, a political theorist, was the right person to face off with such an effective communicator. My background is in philosophy and economics, and I was shocked at Garner's lack of evidence on animal welfare economics, animal welfare science and the social science of animal welfare reforms. This evidence does exist, and I think it supports Garner's conclusions. I think that a professional animal movement strategist/researcher, such as Jacy Reese or the late Norm Phelps, would have been a much better pairing.
I don't think this is the grand debate about movement strategy I was hoping for. However, this book is an excellent introduction to Francione's views and arguments, and is especially valuable because I've always wanted to know how Francione would respond to being pressed on certain objections.
Frankly, Francione performed much better than Garner in this discussion. I'm not sure that Garner, a political theorist, was the right person to face off with such an effective communicator. My background is in philosophy and economics, and I was shocked at Garner's lack of evidence on animal welfare economics, animal welfare science and the social science of animal welfare reforms. This evidence does exist, and I think it supports Garner's conclusions. I think that a professional animal movement strategist/researcher, such as Jacy Reese or the late Norm Phelps, would have been a much better pairing.
I don't think this is the grand debate about movement strategy I was hoping for. However, this book is an excellent introduction to Francione's views and arguments, and is especially valuable because I've always wanted to know how Francione would respond to being pressed on certain objections.
Read
March 30, 2022Francione is the champion for the Abolitionist Approach to animal rights and his books have been the greatest influence on my own thinking and writing on the topic. This book is excellent in particular because it provides the perspective of an abolitionist and an animal protectionist (what Francione would call a new welfarist).
June 18, 2017
the author's claims are generally far too strong to be credible. But, since Francione is the voice of a small but significant fraction of vegans it's worth seeing what he has to say.
August 31, 2021
The arguments for abolition (and new welfarism) explained and debated. In my humble opinion abolition clearly comes out as the way forward.
December 23, 2017
This book brings together two academics who articulate very different conceptions of how animals should be treated. Francione advocates abolition and claims that there is no defensible moral claim for using animals, while Garner pitches a moderate stance that centers on alleviating animal suffering, but which implies no ethical obligations where there is no suffering. Garner rides on a camp which believes human autonomy grants them stronger moral standing (page 190), and therefore the suffering of animals for food/goods production is of less importance than human suffering. As a result, strident veganism is unnecessary. Under this view, a cow that leads a 'happy' life and is 'painlessly' slaughtered should not arouse too much complaint.
The interplay of these arguments highlights the effectiveness of message simplicity. Absolutes sell and Francione is comfortable with absolutism - no animal use whatsoever, whereas Garner is left in the cold with having to rely on discretion and subjectivity over when suffering occurs, when it achieves an unacceptable level, and what urgency this imposes on us to do something.
I enjoyed the fact that the book's latter third is a running dialogue, nay, joust - between the two authors. At times your loyalties will rest with Francione, but then shift when Garner makes an eminently reasonable rebuttal. The major downside of this portion was the repetitiveness of their arguments - firmer editorial control should definitely have been asserted, and is one reason for knocking stars off the rating.
Francione's central contribution in my mind is casting doubt that the decades of animal welfare activism have actually improved animal life. Instead, we are eating more animals than ever before, and oftentimes the feel-good measures that animal welfare organizations have campaigned on were actually financial sensible for the targeted producers. He claims that slightly tweaking the confinement or slaughtering conditions faced by animals has cloaked meat consumption in a sheen of acceptability. If you believe animals have been treated 'humanely', a word often bandied about, then you might believe that 'happy meat' is not an oxymoron.
This book ignored a lot of important ground, which would have ultimately make it more readable. For example, would improved farm practices affect the likelihood of epidemics like avian flu or antibiotic resistance? Should public health concerns drive how we regulate animal agriculture? If we empirically found that property rights improved protection of both endangered species and guarded wildlife against poaching and illegal trade, how would that affect both views of human-animal relations? Should indigenous groups where neither farming nor trade are viable options, be subject to the same moral requirements? How has the widespread introduction and mainstreaming of vegan/vegetarian-friendly in grocery stores and restaurants altered people's dietary habits?
A book that addresses some of these important questions would be fantastic, because while this book shed some insight into the debate between two very opposing views, it provides an incomplete view of animal ethics and its relevance in modern life.
The interplay of these arguments highlights the effectiveness of message simplicity. Absolutes sell and Francione is comfortable with absolutism - no animal use whatsoever, whereas Garner is left in the cold with having to rely on discretion and subjectivity over when suffering occurs, when it achieves an unacceptable level, and what urgency this imposes on us to do something.
I enjoyed the fact that the book's latter third is a running dialogue, nay, joust - between the two authors. At times your loyalties will rest with Francione, but then shift when Garner makes an eminently reasonable rebuttal. The major downside of this portion was the repetitiveness of their arguments - firmer editorial control should definitely have been asserted, and is one reason for knocking stars off the rating.
Francione's central contribution in my mind is casting doubt that the decades of animal welfare activism have actually improved animal life. Instead, we are eating more animals than ever before, and oftentimes the feel-good measures that animal welfare organizations have campaigned on were actually financial sensible for the targeted producers. He claims that slightly tweaking the confinement or slaughtering conditions faced by animals has cloaked meat consumption in a sheen of acceptability. If you believe animals have been treated 'humanely', a word often bandied about, then you might believe that 'happy meat' is not an oxymoron.
This book ignored a lot of important ground, which would have ultimately make it more readable. For example, would improved farm practices affect the likelihood of epidemics like avian flu or antibiotic resistance? Should public health concerns drive how we regulate animal agriculture? If we empirically found that property rights improved protection of both endangered species and guarded wildlife against poaching and illegal trade, how would that affect both views of human-animal relations? Should indigenous groups where neither farming nor trade are viable options, be subject to the same moral requirements? How has the widespread introduction and mainstreaming of vegan/vegetarian-friendly in grocery stores and restaurants altered people's dietary habits?
A book that addresses some of these important questions would be fantastic, because while this book shed some insight into the debate between two very opposing views, it provides an incomplete view of animal ethics and its relevance in modern life.
November 18, 2013
This book presented a very comprehensive, logical and thought-provoking debate between two expert minds in the animal rights fraternity. I appreciated Gary Francione's hardline objective view that we need to consider nonhuman animals as beings in their own right and not as property.Robert Garner's views, however, are nicely tempered and reasoned on ethical grounds. The contrast and exchanges between these two individuals regarding the abolition or regulation of nonhuman animal consumption and use was something I enjoyed following very much. It is not easy to pick a winning argument because they are so thoroughly detailed and clear in many respects.
December 11, 2013
Excellent read in the legal mindset style. Both Garner & Francione make a good argument but Francione resonates with me more. I agree we must abolish animal use by law. Welfare reforms have failed. Abolish the property paradigm & thus animal exploitation.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews