Introduction

As abolitionist vegans we believe in rights for every individual independently of their species. That is the simplest definition of our cause. On the other side of the continuum lies speciesism, the institutionalised discrimination against those who are not human. The closest examples of a will to abolish such a regime or law were those of anti-fascists (since fascism and nazism only considered “pure” nationals as subjects, being everyone else, human or nonhuman an ‘object’) and anti-apartheid activists (since apartheid, the racist regime that ruled South-Africa from 1948 to 1990 only considered European-descendants as persons). Speciesism as a regime, law or system has ruled Earth since the human species has been doing so. Speciesist attitudes are those sayings or actions that promote or encourage speciesism to stay ‘in Office’. As Professor Gary L. Francione states in his book, Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or The Dog, humans have a “moral schizophrenia” regarding the consideration towards nonhuman animals: some humans say they are concerned about animals but they still consider them as ‘property’.

Though being the ruling system followed by most humankind, speciesism has not been unanimously accepted. The British Vegan Society was founded in 1944 with an objective as simple as controversial: to stop using animals for any human purpose. Despite vegan philosophy has such a moral concern, it is still not clear for many people to tell apart veganism from vegetarianism. Being a vegan means not using any animal (human or nonhuman) or any animal product, directly or indirectly, but being a vegetarian does not imply being a vegan (because it refers only to the diet you have, even if it is 100% based on vegetables). In short words, speciesism tells you it is admissible to use individuals (directly or indirectly, i.e. if you buy meat, leather, milk or any other animal product you are having someone to use animals to satisfy your demand) as long as that individual is not of the human species. As humans, we all have our interests protected by rights. We are entitled such rights because we are genetically ‘human’, i.e. ‘belonging to the Homo-sapiens species’. Any other individual belonging to any other species is considered an ‘object’ in any law.

The Vegan Movement

As we, vegans, do not follow the dictations of speciesism, we are questioned by people in general but, how far should we go in our way to tell others what we believe in? Extremes are very clear, as in any aspect of life: On one side we have those who may very well believe we all have rights, independently of our species, but they do not question other people’s beliefs. They say “I don’t use animals (directly or indirectly), but it is all right that others do. I don’t question other people’s beliefs.” This attitude is what Francione questions in his 1992 book Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement. Do they agree with anything? Do they have a cause or do they believe everything people do is right and wrong at the same time? (see related articles in English, en español, em português). On the other side we have those who want everyone else to change their moral values at any price, i.e. entering private property to free individuals being used as ‘property’. That attitude is unquestionably beneficial for those individuals that are freed, but it puts the whole movement, the whole cause on the hot spot, being considered as ‘terrorists’ by most western governments. Is it worth paying the price? Does veganism question speciesist sayings and attitudes or does it question the private property law in general? (see related articles in English, en español, em português).

An Alternative Approach

What we propose here is an alternative approach towards spreading the vegan ideals. Which ideas and actions should we promote? Which ones should we encourage people to change in their lives? Should we confront anything people believe in, say or do because everything is speciesist in the general culture? Or whould we focus on intentional speciesist sayings and attitudes only?

Taking into account our moral framework considers any individual (any sentient being, i.e. anyone who has a centralised nervous system) to be entitled the basic right not to be considered as an ‘object’, (see Francione for further reading in English, en español, em português) whenever anybody is being considered an ‘object’ we understand it is undoubtedly an unfair situation. So far we all agree. The problem begins when the time to exteriorise our disagreement comes. Should we agree to that situation as not being our responsibility? As vegans we do not have any direct responsibility in any use of anybody (human or nonhuman) as an ‘object’ but, is it enough to keep that in the field of our individuality or should we, as moral beings expect others to understand the injustice they are committing?

Where Should We Draw the Line of Our Activism?

Activism means making our ideals public, desiring everyone to follow them. Should we keep our ideals for ourselves, or should we demand everyone else to become a vegan? Or as a third and alternative option, should we confront only those intentional speciesist sayings, attitudes or actions? We know anyone who buys any animal product or attends any show where animals are being used is being speciesist in the sense they are participating in activities or products that require animals to be considered as ‘objects’ or ‘property’ for human purposes. In this case, a typical ‘non-confronting’ vegan would say “I wouldn’t do that, but it’s alright for them because it’s part of their culture”. On the other hand, a more ‘confronting’ vegan would blame the individual who is performing any speciesist act (i.e. participating in any activity or product that requires animals to be considered as ‘objects’).

The key question is: Is any individual performing a speciesist action aware of the consequences of their speciesist attitudes? Should we blame with the same strength every one and single speciesist attitude, from publishing a web site showing off speciesism and accusing vegans as terrorists (see related article, in Spanish) to buying, for instance, a product containing gelatine?

We may agree to different degrees on how aware should anyone be on the fact that gelatine is made out of animal bones, yet the fact that they buy it is a result of not questioning the consequences of our decisions, and not the result of a conspiracy towards animals remaining to be considered as ‘objects’. On the other hand, someone who is aware enough of the convenience of speciesism for their own personal benefit as to publish a web site stating that using animals is not only “natural” but “desirable” (see related article in Spanish, see the speciesist website in English) can be accused of anything but naïve.

An Alternative Framework

Our proposed scheme is one that contemplates the best feature of both positions, always departing from a the Animal Rights point of view (read more on Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare in English, en español, em português). This scheme should act and use strategies in order to put Animal Rights on the discussion board. We do not believe vegans should misuse our immense moral potential to spread the idea of a world where everyone, no matter our species, should have rights. Yet we do not believe wasting and giving up the cause of animal rights to just being ‘general terrorism’ is worth the price to pay.

The Orange sphere represents the moral framework that considers every animal, human or nonhuman to be entitled basic rights, at least the basic right not to be treated as an object (see Francione, Gary L.). The Green sphere represents promoting veganism as a lifestyle that is compatible with that framework, i.e. it doesn’t require anybody to be considered as an ‘object’. The black sphere represents an awareness about and confrontation of intentional speciesism, speciesist propaganda, or any propaganda that gives the message animals are, and should stay as ‘objects’.

Being vegan means we do not participate in any product or activity that requires nonhuman animals to be considered as ‘objects’. That kind of veganism could be said to be ‘just practical’ or ‘without moral positioning’ since moral positioning requires the honesty to tell others what you believe in (see related article by Luciano Cunha, in Portuguese). This discussion of whether theoretical speciesism precedes practical speciesism was dealt with in a previous blog entry (in Spanish). We agree with the position that says practical speciesism precedes the theoretical one to the extent that the general public is not fully aware of the consequences of their actions. Since intentional speciesism tells everyone of us –since childhood that “animals are objects naturally used by humans as resources”, we are not prepared to draw a different moral line, one that includes them into the moral community (i.e. that of the ‘beings who possess rights’). People who are not aware of the possibility of a wider moral community, one that includes every sentient being in it are not even aware of the capacity every individual having centralised nervous system has to perceive sensations, i.e. to have interests of their own.

We are vegans because we believe everyone should have basic rights (at least the right not to be an ‘object’; see Francione for more information), because we have a moral framework that understands the capacity to feel gives us (human or nonhuman) interests of our own. Should we expect others to become vegans departing from a moral framework that tells them only individuals belonging to the human species are entitled basic or civil rights? On the other hand, starting by, say, becoming a vegetarian regardless our moral framework has also proven to pave the way for a new moral understanding, one that includes every individual into the moral community independently of their species (as long as that vegetarianism, of course, has moral foundations and does not stagnate in an ambiguous moral position). This is the reason why neither way should be closed. On the one hand promoting people to come closer to the cause by starting to live without the need to use animals in gradually more and more aspects of their lives, and on the other hand, confronting intentional speciesism.

People are discouraged to become vegan because intentional speciesism exists (see the related picture blog or the Facebook group). From early childhood we are told to tell individuals apart: anyone who is from the human species is ‘a subject’ and anyone else is ‘an object’, i.e. the family dog, no matter the degree of acceptance into the family’s moral community. Intentional speciesism is that which promotes the existence of speciesist sayings and attitudes. It is always designed with the intention of keeping thins as they are. That kind of speciesism comes from the minds of people who especially benefit from the idea that nonhuman animals are ‘objects’. If nonhuman animals were also subjects, i.e. entitled to rights, those people who benefit from speciesism would not be able to keep their businesses running. Similarly, in the times when human slavery was accepted, stories and tales about African people being “inferior”, “heretic” or “not-human” were encouraged by slaveholders and by everyone else who had slavery-related bussinesses. Independently of our consideration towards education, it is naïve to underestimate the effect intentional speciesism has on keeping things as they are for nonhuman animals.

Conclusions

We vegans, who believe in Animal Rights, depart from a moral framework based on sentience, the capacity every animal has to feel, thus, to have interests of their own. Our framework includes every sentient being in the moral community, i.e. everyone should have rights that protect our interests regardless our species. As moral beings we intend to state our moral values very clear. We do not participate in any activity that requires other animals to be considered as ‘objects’, but we cannot demand people becoming vegan if they do not share our moral framework. The best way to share our moral framework is always by patiently and kindly educating others about it. We should not underestimate the capacity any kind of approach to a life that does not require animals being considered as ‘objects’, i.e. kinds of vegetarianism, to find people who are closer to adopting this set of values. What we cannot do is ignore that kind of speciesism (the discrimination towards nonhuman animals that puts them in the position of ‘objects’) which is intentional and designed by people who benefit from that idea. That kind of speciesism, the one we see in speciesist propaganda (see related picture blog or Facebook group) should be our frontline.

NOTES:

See related web sites in English: Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach // Ánima

Ver sitios web relacionados en español: Ánima // Derechos Animales Humanos y Nohumanos

Ver websites relacionados em porguguês: Sentiens // Ánima
]]> http://uruguayvegano.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/vegans-what-do-we-believe-in-say-and-criticise/feed/ 1 uruguayvegano