I just read a “theory” by none other than the guru of ‘non-human abolitionism’ Gary L Francione, and it made me want to vomit, well not vomit in a visceral sense, but more importantly in a pschoyanalytical sense.
Here is the incoherent, nonsensical, most of the time, say nothing, time wasting, so called “theory” that made me want to puke with disgust, read it at your own peril, but please be forewarned and bring your own paper bag.
Is it me? or does this segment from his 1st paragraph leave you with a sense of, well, dread? “However, the theory rests on a fundamental premise that animals have moral value, a position for which I make rational arguments as well, but which cannot ultimately be “proved” any more than we can “prove” matters of human rights” If this isn’t drivel, then ‘drivel’ needs an overhaul. ‘If’ his position of cannot ultimately be “proved” is to be accepted as ‘truth’ then where does it leave his contention that ‘animals have a moral value’, wait!, don’t answer that, I want to answer it for you, after you get your nose out of the paper bag (which you may want to renew by now,) it’s an exercise in saying, that there is no moral value in a sentient animals life, because it can’t be proven. Where does that leave the ‘animal?’, well, unfortunately, D-E-A-D, DEAD!!
If you still have a stomach for it, then read on. I’ll try to make this easy on you, Francione says this in his 2nd paragraph, and I’d like you to ‘not read it’ because he says absolutely nothing in it. Here goes nothing! “All moral arguments must contain a moral premise (most arguments have more than one such premise) that cannot be proved and that must be accepted in order to reason within the particular moral system or framework. In fact, the same is true of math, which relies on axioms and postulates that cannot be proved and have to be accepted in order to reason within the system, and science, which assumes the fundamentals of whatever scientific paradigm is extent at a particular historical point” There, that wasn’t so traumatic, was it? after all, you didn’t read it, right? oh and if you did read it, well, so what?, would you have gained some kind of enlightenment if you had?, I think not, so strike it from memory and pretend it doesn’t exist, because, umm, it is void of ‘any’ practical or applicable value to your decision as to whether non-human animals have moral worth or not. Strike two, for sentient beings.
Next we have a form of defeatism as the ‘guillotine’ that removed the head of the ‘moral worth’ of sentient beings, and I quote (Bold lettering by me). “For me, certain moral propositions (such as that the infliction of pain, suffering, and death on any sentient being is, at least as a prima facie matter, morally wrong) are true in the same way that I regard any other proposition as true. And that proposition itself is a function of other views I have about nonviolence. But a rational person who had different views about moral realism could reject my views” OK, so, does that mean if I have a different set of moral values or criteria, that I am morally justified in abusing non-humans, yep, that’s what the guru and professor just said, so go ahead and savour that filet mignon that was butchered from the sentient but expendable sentient non-human, Francione said it’s oky doky! Strike 3 and your
Finally the professor strikes the death knell for all reason to discontinue the abuse of non-human animals.
“Rationality is about the suitability of means to ends. When we say that a person is irrational, we generally mean s/he is choosing means that are inappropriate for an end. But there is no monolithic concept of rationality that allows us to declare that particular ends are inherently irrational. Engaging in conduct that will bring about the end of the world is irrational if you do not see the extinction of life as a desirable end. But for those who think extinction is valuable, or do not care about future generations, destructive behavior may be rational.
Rationality is also about the coherence of beliefs. If I believe that if animals are sentient then we ought not to consume them and that animals are sentient, it is irrational for me to conclude that I ought to consume them.
Claims about rationality (and irrationality) are normative claims that, like moral claims, require justification. Therefore, the notion that we can get to animal rights through “science” or rationality, and that we do not need unprovable moral or normative notions, is simply false. Rationality cannot tell us what ends we should pursue or what fundamental beliefs are worth having. Those are normative matters and, like the axioms of math or the fundamentals of a scientific paradigm, cannot be proved outside the particular system.”
Here’s my main concern with more of his apologetic and equivocationistic language from the above quoted paragraph, […]and that we do not need unprovable moral or normative notions, is simply false.” So he wants to give you yet again an unprovable set of morals that give you once again the invitation to dine on your morally bankrupted prime rib, thank you professor of ‘animal abolition’ because you’ve done a ‘bang up’ job of handing the heart of sentient animals on a plate for ‘anyone’ with a different point of view to season and consume with your professorial blessing.
I don’t think I can make this any clearer, but with friends like “professor” Francione,
WHO NEEDS ENEMIES!