Talk:Abolitionism (animal rights)

Definition

Abolitionism ...is the idea that the legal ownership of animals must be abolished before animal suffering can be substantially reduced? Doesn't the most prominent autors promoting abolitionism - Gary Francione and Tom Regan say that abolitionism is needed because there is no excuse for animal exploitation as such, no matter how "humane" it is? If I'm right, the end of the first sentence should be removed.
(BTW, why is Regan not mentioned in this article??) --Sandris.Ā (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Sandris is right; Francione in particular goes to great pains to distinguish between treatment and use, claiming the latter is the real problem. Advocacy aimed primarily at reducing suffering, in his view, is not "abolitionist". In addition, many abolitionists find this view inadequate, preferring a more pragmatic "two-track" approach to abolition that addresses both treatment and use. So yes, I suggest that the clause "before animal suffering can be substantially reduced" should be removed. —Hoss Firooznia (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Monkey gender

Hello! Could we find out the gender of the monkey somehow? Calling she or he 'it' seems a little distasteful on this page. 86.138.103.222 (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this also came up at Animal rights. And there's an easy way of skirting the issue: "around the neck". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Abolitionism

[First post moved from SV talk]

Slim, per your request, I am discussing my changes with you here (I don't see a talk feature for the article, so maybe Wikipedia doesn't use that feature anymore? (I'm not a frequent editor)). I fully expect that you will revert to my most recent draft, and frankly I'm puzzled that you wouldn't just leave it without putting me through this. You have no cause to undo my changes. The current version of my changes is fully referenced, using Francione's work (he is the foremost proponent of abolitionism). I and other active abolitionists in the animal rights community agreed that the entry that was in place before I made the changes was in places incoherent (e.g., made no sense, ex: "making the exercise of property rights over animals appear less unattractive"), incorrect, misleading, and lacking key information that identified abolitionism for what it is. I have attempted to correct all this information, citing Francione's work as appropriate. It's a solid entry, does exactly what it needs to do as a Wikipedia entry (inform the public about what abolitionism really is, and it references works for people to further study the topic). I see no reason why it shouldn't go back at once. Epskionline (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Epskionline

Hi, I reverted because your edits had the flavour of advocacy rather than a disinterested account. For example, the second sentence telling individuals what they must do, and the third paragraph taking a side ("to meaningfully help animals"), and those are just two examples. See your version here.

Can you say which sentences in the current version you see as incorrect? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

What you have called out is not personal advocacy at all. I merely attempted to bring forth more clearly and directly the ideology of abolitionism, particularly relying upon the works of Francione. The whole point behind "meaningfully help animals" is of course that abolitionists believe that welfare reform campaigns generally do not meaningfully help animals. Francione has written as much more times than I can count.

There are also some random quibbles like "pursue welfare concerns". What does that mean? New welfarists do pursue welfare reforms, but what is a welfare concern? I've never heard that language used within the movement. A general language note I have already mentioned is with "appear less unattractive." That is not clear writing, and it could confuse the reader. I sought with my revision to keep everything as clear as possible.

Misleading: "the legal ownership of nonhuman animals is unjust, and that it must be abolished before animal suffering can be substantially reduced." Abolitionists recognize that animals suffer, and of course that it's better for them to suffer less, but abolitionists also recognize that animals have interests *other* than suffering. This is a critical difference between abolitionists and many other advocates. For example, abolitionists recognize that animals have an interest in their own lives, whereas many protectionists do not. The point of eliminating the property status of animals is that all their interests will count for less than comparatively trivial human interests as long as they are legally regarded as mere things.

Right after the above-quoted passage we have another problem that truly represents a wider problem with the article in that crucial elements are left out, reducing the abolitionist approach to something overly simplistic, something other than what it really is. For example, abolitionists aren't opposed to welfare reform campaigns just because it may make animal use look okay. That is a common and alarming perspective, no doubt perpetuated by this Wikipedia article. Abolitionists are opposed to welfare reforms because, despite the millions of dollars spent and countless hours, and the claims of new welfarists, they fail to meaningfully help animals. So abolitionists keep that in context when when consumers see animal use and consumption in a more positive light because of the halo effect surrounding reforms. These are but two of the defects of welfarism that Francione has written about on more than one occasion (I cited a blog entry at his site regarding the four problems of animal welfarism in a nutshell). The way it's written in your article now, it seems that abolitionists oppose perfectly wholesome, successful welfare reforms solely because they are worried it will make animal use look okay. Much confusion and in-fighting between abolitionists and new welfarists centers on this point, because of confusion over this very topic. Some people think that abolitionists would rather animals continue suffer, when the point is really that the reforms accomplish next to nothing while simultaneously increasing the positive association with animal consumption.

Anyway, the point of my revision was to make it more clear what abolitionists actually stood for so that people wouldn't be confused in this and similar ways. I think it's important that an advocate who has read all Francione's works and has worked as a grassroots abolitionist for over three years be permitted to correct the entry. Epskionline (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)epskionline

It would help if you could just explain one sentence at a time what's wrong with the current version. I've read Francione's works too, so we're obviously just disagreeing about emphasis here.

The first sentence: "Abolitionism within the animal rights movement is the idea that the legal ownership of nonhuman animals is unjust, and that it must be abolished before animal suffering can be substantially reduced." You say this focuses too much on suffering, so we can add something to it that makes clear suffering is not the only concern. Any other sentences you find problematic? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a wonder anyone contributes to Wikipedia at all. This is completely stultifying. I have made it clear the sorts of problems there are and the changes I'd make. Just look at my version if you want to know how I think it should go. Did you read what I wrote above? We're doing more than merely disagreeing on emphasis.

I don't have the time to go through this line by line to justify my changes. I was simply trying to make a quick fix to an article I saw that worried me, and now I'm sucked into a debate with someone who seems to be possessive of his version of the article. Why are you so adamant about avoiding my revision and clinging instead to what was there before? Is it ego or what? (I'm not trying to attack, I just don't understand why you are fixated.) Either my version is an improvement or it's not. In my view, it is vastly improved. I have yet to see from you any compelling argumentation to suggest that it is inferior. I imagine Wikipedia is keenly interested in improving the quality of their articles. In fact, I noticed the quality of your article is rated relatively low. Perhaps my version can improve upon that. That said, if there are corrections you'd like to make to it to keep it from coming across as advocating for abolitionism or whatever, then please let me know, because that would take far less time and end up with far better results.

I have a technical question, as I don't do this often (almost never), and I don't really know the structure of the Wikipedia volunteers. Do you have any real authority to prevent me from reverting back to my version, tweaking or adding a couple of words to make it clear that the article is not stating the authors' views but rather abolitionism's views, and then just keep reverting it back when someone tries to change it, much as you have been doing with me? Epskionline (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)epskionline

It's just that what you're writing is a lot to read. The point is that our articles have to be written in a particular way—in a disinterested tone, and citing sources. They can't be written as essays or advocacy pieces. I know you believe your version was an improvement, and perhaps from an abolitionist perspective it was, but we can't write this from an abolitionist perspective. (The article rating is mine, by the way.)

No, I have no authority to prevent you from restoring your version, but I'll almost certainly remove anything again that smacks of advocacy. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

In case it helps, our content policies are WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't find this too long to read, but I am finding it a little difficult to picture clearly what the differences are, in terms of wording, between the two versions. Perhaps it may help to show them here in this talk, in a side-by-side display? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The current version isn't as bad, because it has lost some of the advocacy vocabulary. But I don't see it as an improvement over what was there already, e.g. here. Also, it seems to be equating abolitionism with Francione and the rejection of violence (see point 4 of the lead). It's true that Francione is a leading abolitionist writer, and it's true that he rejects violence, but that can't become part of the definition of abolitionism. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin who says: "It's true that Francione is a leading abolitionist writer, and it's true that he rejects violence, but that can't become part of the definition of abolitionism." BrandonXVX (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about this. I've restored an older version, which is less focused on Francione. His detailed position belongs in the article about him. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the new modification: "Others think that this should be done by creating a public debate in society." I also think that the deeply nonviolent principle Francione expresses is a core in his own personal transformation (as a more 'secular Jain'?) that gives wings (or wind in the sales) to a great many would-be abolitionists who fear or suspect disingenuous motives (or at least a willingness to try to shortcut inside-out transformation in the human population) in order to achieve short-term liberations locally). In fine form, he remains not only fully legal in what he does, but also in what he advocates. MaynardClark (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Definition... again

The opening paragraph here never explains WHAT abolitionists are trying to abolish. Is it specifically vivisection (as Francione's reference suggests)? Is it the legal ownership of animals by humans? Is it all animal suffering caused by humans? The term is never actually defined and what's said in the lead (first sentence) is difficult to believe as a full-fledged definition of the term; as it says, abolitionists may believe that reform is ineffective, sure, but that's not what defines them. Abolitionism must be defined as the belief that *SOMETHING* must be abolished--i.e. eradicated, officially outlawed, or otherwise ended. What is that "SOMETHING"? Whatever it is, it should be included there in the very first sentence and it currently is missing. Wolfdog (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

How about establishing personhood as a fundamental characteristic of rights holders? Then, abolishing the notion that rights holding requires membership in the human species; that humans have all the characteristics necessary to hold moral rights and that legal rights of some kind (basic moral status recognized in the laws) can be held by nonhumans. That would abolish the notion that membership in the human species is itself necessary to have recognized moral rights, but that humans have that - yet some other animals do have those characteristics, also.

However, maybe that's not enough for Gary Francione or other animal RIGHTS theorists, though they are struggling to distinguish themselves from mere 'welfarists' for the sake of public advocacy on behalf of others.MaynardClark (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Animal law is different from animal rights. Whole bodies of law pertain to legal protections for nonhumans, however minimal those laws are.MaynardClark (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we're trying to make up our own definition here. We need to explain how the word is actually used by those already using it. What's their definition? P.S. If there are competing definitions used by different scholars of note, then we need to just say that. Wolfdog (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abolitionism (animal rights). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722235731/http://www.animalsvoice.com/TomRegan//regan_torch.html to http://www.animalsvoice.com/TomRegan/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abolitionism (animal rights). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090508021512/http://www.friendsofanimals.org/programs/animal-rights/interview-with-gary-francione.html to http://www.friendsofanimals.org/programs/animal-rights/interview-with-gary-francione.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Merge

Should we merge this with Veganism? Countryboy603 (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd say no. They are two very different things. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

There are many sources to suggest that veganism is a philosophy rather than a diet or abstinence from animal products:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/vegan-living-no-joke-le_b_179774/amp

https://www.veganfoodandliving.com/features/are-zoos-vegan-we-explore-both-sides-of-the-debate/

https://bitesizevegan.org/is-horse-riding-cruel-is-it-vegan/

https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

https://theresanelephantintheroomblog.wordpress.com/2021/06/16/zoos-and-other-prisons-not-vegan-not-conservation-not-education/ Countryboy603 (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the two may not be the same philosophy. And while some vegans may do so as a matter of philosophy, not all do. Lots of overlaps, sure, but not the same thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

No. They should NOT be merged. I wouldn't mind a link, but a merger would be deeply problematic. Historyday01 (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)