Sentient Being Rights Project

In this short document, I would like to postulate the argument I favor for sentient being rights and adopting a vegan orientation so that a vegan audience may utilize the perspective to help inform the evolution of their own perspective on the topic. I would also like to make a case for sentient being rights and veganism to a skeptical audience. 

Although the term vegan is sometimes used to refer narrowly to a dietary practice of excluding all animal food items (the so-called "strict vegetarian"), the term more generally refers to the adoption of the general practice of causing as little suffering and death as possible to others. Put another way, veganism is a boycott of sorts against the entire animal-use industry. Veganism is the individual's action orientation of an ethical position supporting sentient being rights. The primary practice vegans use to achieve this goal is to forgo being a consumer of products that require the causing of suffering and death of others. This entails forgoing animal food products, clothing, and entertainment. Many vegans also more actively advocate for rights being extended to nonhuman sentient animals. The abolitionist vegan worldview simply refers to this general principle and its application. It is not a subversive agenda but rather a desire to seek justice and minimize suffering. 

Allow me to explicate my argument for adopting a vegan worldview. I know I don't like to suffer and I assume neither do others. Causing suffering or loss of opportunity via death is repugnant to me. Since we don't need any of these animal products to survive (and in fact we as individuals and the ecosystem as a whole are better off without them), I avoid contributing to their use by not being a consumer of them; I avoid facilitating the causing of pain and suffering. I resist being exploited and harmed and so I vow not to exploit and harm others as a form of justice, and without justice, the ethical system falls apart. I value integrity with regards to the consistent application of this principle. Many people say they abhor causing unnecessary harm but then they go ahead and behave in ways that do cause great amounts of unnecessary harm, breaching their own integrity.  They blast vitriol about Michael Vic for causing suffering for his own amusement but fail to realize that it's no different ethically from eating or wearing animals for you own enjoyment. Presumably, they fail to appreciate the inconsistency or recognize the consequences of their choices, or else they see it and believe the exception is justified or they just don't care about inconsistencies and prefer to say they abhor violence because saying so is reinforcing, even if actual justice and integrity to that principle is not. Most people simply have not given any thought to it or else they have and just don't care because that's just how things happen to be done and they are not interested in integrity. When we pay people to kill animals or put them in horrendous conditions so that we may eat, wear or be entertained by or learn from them, we are exploiting them and causing suffering. Without our role in the supply and demand equation (being consumers), the suffering simply does not happen. We are usually well protected from seeing the consequences of these choices. Someone once said, if slaughter houses had glass walls, we'd all be vegans. Maybe so; more likely, many people would then simply look the other way and find another way to escape the fact that their behavior they prefer to perform has horrible consequences for others; they escape empathy and compassion because their preferences are to use (exploit) the animals. Most people just don't think about it. Self-deception, compartmentalization, whatever. The consequences of our choices occur regardless of whether we recognize, deny or avoid them. People do all sorts of mental gymnastics to conform to conventional ways of doing things and the social reinforcement that comes with that, even if it clearly represents a flawed contradictory moral theory. Being a free-thinker (being willing to challenge conventional assumptions) can be scary for some people.

Look, I claim to believe that causing suffering and death to nonhuman animals has moral significance. If someone were to propose kicking a dog as they walk down the street just because they find it amusing, I would say that is wrong, that it has a moral significance. Likewise, if I see a news story about someone who put a bunch of puppies or kittens in a plastic bag and threw it in the lake, I am upset because I believe that is morally wrong. Likewise again, if I hear that some football player abuses dogs and trains them to fight and arranges for these fights, then I also find that repugnant. Almost all people claim to feel the same way, and they do. But, as Gary Francione puts it, ask yourself why that upsets you? It's upsetting because someone is causing suffering and death simply for amusement. So what's the difference between these particular instances of causing suffering and death and all other particular instances of causing suffering and death for amusement such as buying a steak or wearing leather? What's the difference between your dog and the pig you stick a fork into? What's the difference between someone standing around sicking dogs on each other and sitting around the BBQ cooking up the flesh of a cow? In an ethical context, nothing! If we claim to recognize that causing pain, suffering and death is morally repugnant then that has certain logical implications. If we claim it is wrong in these few particular instances then we must logically admit that it is just as wrong in these other instances, ones we ourselves are a cause of. It would be hypocritical in the worst possible way to to deny this. You can't consistently find the first few examples I proposed morally repugnant and not find it equally morally repugnant to eat animals that someone killed because you provided the demand (i.e., money) for that product. We do not need complex philosophical arguments to realize this. You already claim reflectively to believe and actually do believe that causing suffering and death is morally wrong, for whatever reason or by whatever theory. Just think about the hypocrisy of claiming this on the one hand and then paying people to cause suffering and death to nonhuman animals for you, so you can enjoy eating them or wearing them etc. just for amusement and don't kid yourself, it is merely amusement or preference, not necessity. 

Face the facts and think clearly. I know that if I buy a steak or leather shoes that someone had to suffering for that or lose the opportunity to experience further joys of life. That consequence is unavoidable whether I recognize and think about it or deny, rationalize and dismiss it. I experience empathy and compassion, and it promotes in me the general motivation and prescriptive rule to avoid providing a demand for products that cause the suffering and death. I find it repulsive when others so readily contribute to the horrors of the animal-use industries. It's really (like all behaviors) all about the reinforcers. I access powerful pride and satisfaction reinforcement for behaviors consistent with veganism (justice in relation to rights) and I avoid aversive revulsion and sadness related punishers at the same time.

But it's more than just what offends me personally in terms of a revulsion to causing suffering and death to others. Philosophically, we are concerned with how we OUGHT to behave. It's more than a subjective personal preference. I hold that my behavior that impacts upon the wellbeing of others ought to be informed by justified and coherent principles rather than being arbitrary. Here, extremely briefly is the foundation for ethics, as I see it, and hence why justice is important and "being ethical" makes any sense at all. Living in a society makes available a great range of highly effective reinforcers and the cost of accessing these reinforcers is adhering to ethical principles, which are so developed to promote the stability of society and consequently the availability of those reinforcers. In other words, if we want to live and thrive together then we have to get along well enough for that to be possible and that's what ethics is for. There are certain principles that are fundamental to ethics including justice and the mechanisms of protecting interests--rights. Rights require responsibility, which necessitates obligation. It's a simple matter of justice. Justice refers to treating similar cases similarly unless their is relevant and sufficient reason not to. Justice is a basic ethical principle providing the foundation for other principles as it is key to maintaining the stability of society. It's a fundamental principle of ethics. "Any theory that maintains that it is permissible to treat similar cases in a dissimilar way would fail to qualify as an acceptable moral theory for that reason alone." (Fracione, 2008, p. 45) To maintain consistent ethical, principled behavior, we adhere to the rule of justice. That is not to say that we blindly follow the prescriptive rule and fail to consider specific issues in any given moment, but that a good rule will be applicable to situations faced in real life. In that regard, it is a good (and indeed necessary) general prescriptive rule for members of society to adhere to the principle of justice when it comes to rules regarding the exploitation / coercion or harming of others or treating others as our property in any way. This general rule is what the concept of rights is all about and it is what maintains a strong cohesive society so that we may all live together to mutual benefit. 

But no one seriously argues that we treat similar cases dissimilarly of course. The argument is that humans and other animals are sufficiently dissimilar in relevant ways that treating them dissimilarly with regards to rights is justified. The most basic moral right is the right not to be treated as the property of others, to exploit or coerce others, the cause them harm. The question is, to whom shall this 'right' apply. Many demarcation traits have been proposed that intend to justify including all and only humans and they really all boil down to mere species membership. Mere species membership (i.e., just applying the rule to humans) is not relevant to the rule, thereby justifying an exception. Nor does how complex the animal's thought processes are, another commonly cited reason for an exception. The class of all individuals to whom rights applies has changed over time. Rights used to be extended to white male humans. It took quite some time but humans eventually came to realize in separate movements that this was an arbitrary class distinction  with regards to rights. We eventually extended rights to both human women and to non-white humans. But "human" is just as arbitrary a class boundary as white male human. Excluding all nonhumans summarily is just as arbitrary as excluding black people or women. The only relevant trait regarding inclusion criteria for respecting basic rights to have interests in not being caused suffering and loss of future opportunity through being killed is whether the being in question can experience said suffering or loss of opportunity. We can only protect the interests of those who have interests and we can only exploit (using someone in a manner that harms them) those who can be caused suffering or loss of opportunity. If something cannot experience suffering or loss of opportunity then they do not have interests and they cannot have rights because their is no interest to protect. Rocks and trees do not have interests and therefore it is inappropriate to say they ought to have rights but if we adhere to justice, then all sentient beings ought to have rights. Rights are something that require respecting and protecting, which is why self-defense is justified (either by individuals defending themselves against being assaulted or by society/community as a whole in using a legal and law enforcement mechanism for protecting the reinforcement value of community living). Those who breach our rights forfeit certain rights in the context of the victim's right to use coercive force to defend themselves. 

Pardon my redundancy in this summary, but this topic is fundamental to the case: We use rights to protect interests and we apply it justly because to do otherwise would be seriously detrimental to the ethics of maintaining a society that brings us many very high valued reinforcers. To devise a just system of basic rights, we must include all beings who have interests, those who can experience suffering or loss of opportunity and hence have at least that interest. Those without interests are excluded. The relevance is obvious--we are talking about not causing suffering and identifying those who can experience suffering as the class to which this principle applies. Arguments about whether some others think exactly the same way as we do (the "similar minds theory") is just as irrelevant as being female or having black skin colour. A right is the protection of interests. With regards to the basic right not to be treated as the property of others, the only relevant feature necessary for the right to be applied is whether or not the being has interests. The relevancy is clearly established. Being able to experience pain or pleasure, what we minimally call sentience is the foundation for whether a being has interests. They have an interest in experiencing pleasure and in avoiding pain and as such, we justly apply the basic right to them. Excepting non-humans is unjust/arbitrary and injustice is detrimental to society and hence to maximizing the reinforcers it makes available to each of us. Ethics is objective, not subjective. It is in each of our interests to advocate for justice and basic rights to protect the interests of those who have an interest in not suffering or dying. This is, as they say, a "good rule" because it consistently satisfies its ethical objective of strengthening the reinforcement capacity that society allows for.

If you don't want to cause suffering to others, then simply stop doing so, it is far easier than you likely think it is. In that case, you would need to avoid being a consumer of it in order to maintain integrity to that stated objective. Certainly, some people can scoff at it and say "Yeah, well, whatever" and just go about their business committing injustices (i.e., failing to recognize justice and rights), and they may feel comforted by the fact that a lot of people do so but ethics is not a matter of just what a lot of people do; it is about what is consistent with ethical theory, and justice and rights are about as fundamental as it gets with regards to ethics. In game theory, they would be referred to as "cheaters." If we want to enjoy the benefits of living in society and have protected rights, there is a price to pay and that involves limiting our "use" of others. We accept an obligation not to exploit others, treating them as our property; we accept our liberty and in turn recognize it in others. Accepting the benefits of community living in society (e.g., protected rights) but failing to, in turn, respect the rights claims of others in a just manner results in deterioration of the system. That is what ethics is for, delineating these principles and precepts! Justice and rights are required to maintain the vast benefits of community living and social relationships in general. "Cheating" risks deterioration of the "game." Never mind ethical theories that demand you act for the group and against your own interests. That's nonsense. We behave ethically because it is in OUR own individual long term best interest. Behaving ethically indeed benefits the stability of society but we do that in order to ensure we have a society to live in, individuals acting to mutual cooperative benefit. We don't forgo exploiting others for the benefit of others or society as a whole; we do so because in the long run, it is well worth accepting simple negative duty obligations to avoid treating others as our property. But, whether your goal is to benefit society as a whole or just yourself, the ethic is the same: justice is required in either case.

Because most people compromise their ethical integrity and unjustly contribute to the causing of suffering and death of others does not make the above argument unreasonable or unsound. That would be an ad populum fallacy, and it is very common. Many people resist the notion of rights extended to nonhumans because they worry about what the consequences will mean for their interests in using nonhuman animals as property. Many people worried about that same thing when it was proposed that not only white people should have rights but so too should black people. Same with how some people treated jewish people or women at certain times in history. We overcame these injustices for the most part but that is not the end of the story. Nonhuman sentient animals are yet another class of beings that are unjustly exploited. I saw an interview this morning on CNN with an advocate for gay rights, who explained his state's voting down of gay marriage options by saying that "it is tough for a minority to convince a majority to not discriminate against them." Indeed! But the key is to demonstrate the injustice and explain why justice is so much more important than a few food preferences or fashion trends etc. We ought not hide from doing the right thing because of such minor concerns. Justice is far more valuable than keeping nonhuman animals as property. Plus, you will feel the pride of doing the right thing. Ever hear someone tell a racist joke and you specifically opposed it in some way. That was the right thing to do and you contacted some pride reinforcement for that behavior. The same thing goes for adopting a non-speciesist lifestyle. You'll feel great about doing the right thing just as you feel great doing the right thing in other respects.

And so, those who recognize and respect basic rights in all sentient beings adopt veganism, the individual expression of such an ethic. Vegans recognize that rights apply not just to members of the species we happen to be members of but justly to anyone who has interests in their life. Just as we eventually recognized that treating women or black people or gay people dissimilarly in terms of basic rights was unjust, so too do we now need to recognize that treating nonhuman animals dissimilarly in terms of basic rights is unjust. Many people falsely assume animal rights is some agenda that threatens their own interests but what they fail to recognize is that justice in the application of rights is far more valuable than the minor interests that are sacrificed to ensure it. This is what freedom and physical integrity of your body is all about. Most people do make an arbitrary exception to this rule of avoiding harming others and exclude nonhuman animals simply because they are not the same species or because they think that these other animals think less complex stuff or something. It is arbitrary because it is irrelevant to whether you are causing pain and suffering or not or whether that is somehow justified. Honestly, do you really think causing suffering and death to someone is justified because they are not as smart as you? What about the severely retarded humans then? Is it okay to use them as forced organ donors or otherwise cause them suffering or death? And some people simply have no problem causing pain and suffering. 

We do not need to eat, wear, be entertained by or perform harmful experiments on others. It may be a preference for some people but by no means do we need any of that. In fact, using animals in these ways, particularly in terms of food, is harmful to our health, destructive to the environment and is wasteful in terms of food, promoting world hunger. So, not to mention the ethical considerations of justice and avoiding harming others unnecessarily, it is just plain bad for us in other ways.

Please excuse the redundancy, but I would like to address the skeptical reader more directly. First, try to keep an open mind. Forget that most people simply do not respect the rights of nonhuman animals. Forget for a moment that you have a general (but unnecessary) preference for meat and leather etc. Try to see the topic with a fresh perspective. Have the courage to be a free-thinker, just for a moment, to challenge commonly held assumptions. 

The important thing here is to appreciate that no one is asking you to act against your best interests. What I would like to help demonstrate to you is that it IS in your best interest to adopt a vegan worldview with regards to whom basic rights apply to. It is in your interest because justice and rights are vitally important to making society the best it can be for each of us. It is in each of our interests to limit our social conduct in certain minimally intrusive ways in order to make society operate in a cooperative manner. We thrive if society thrives. One is only asked to forgo exploiting others. That's all. We deal with one another to mutual advantage cooperatively rather than exploitatively. Without this basic ethical precept, society does not work to maximum benefit; it degrades, which harms each of us. That's why we spend efforts identifying ways to make society work. It is not because the many are worth more than the few or because selfishness is evil. It is in our own personal self interest to avoid exploiting others and this is how we maintain our liberty. There are other reasons why a vegan worldview is in your own best interest. It is much more healthy nutritionally and it is extremely better for the environment than the alternative. Likely you are so inclined to maintain integrity to a just moral code and to avoid being a hypocrite right? That is something you likely take pride in, something you recognize the rewards for. Surely you appreciate the value of basic rights, the idea that we each have to right not to be treated as property of others. Well, if you want to be just and ethical and not a hypocrite, whom do we extend this basic right to? White male humans? Of course not right? All and only humans? Why is this distinction any more appropriate, just and relevant than the class of white males? Making it just humans is arbitrary. That's not justice and is hypocrisy. Simply being a member of another species, or thinking like humans do or being able to speak etc. are not relevant distinctions when it comes to the basic right not to have pain and suffering intensionally inflicted upon you just as being a woman or black or gay are not. What do these things have to do with the protection of basic interests not to be caused pain and suffering so that others may exploit us as if we were their property? That's all irrelevant desperately clung to by those who simply cannot provide a well argued justification. The only relevant consideration is whether the being has interests in not experiencing pain and suffering and being treated as the property of others. All sentient beings have this interest. Trees and rocks don't. Bugs likely do not either, were'r not entirely sure. But, certainly mammals, birds and fish do. Humans are one species of mammal. If you are serious about your moral integrity, then you have to face this fact and conduct yourself accordingly. Integrity is valuable! It's worth it! Not only does it produce a better society in which you will then live but it will make you proud of yourself knowing you are doing the right thing. And believe me, it's not tough to simply forgo leather, fur and animal food items. In fact it is way easier than most people think it's going to be. Order the veggie burger next time you are out. Most of them are pretty darned good. And if you're worried about your health, don't; it's the carnivorous diet that is a health risk. A vegan diet is much better for you.

Let's say you are just not that interested in integrity and justice and consistency and reasoning etc. Leaving all that aside, you gotta know that millions of animals live short, miserable lives followed by horrific deaths just so you can wear leather shoes rather than those made from other materials (and these days, you can barely tell the difference except that synthetic materials are lighter abd more weather resistant), or so you can eat hamburgers (which are killing you and destroying the environment) instead of other foods. Don't avoid it or hide from it or come up with lame preposterous excuses. Just take a look at what it actually means for others so that you may have that hamburger or leather coat: Click here. I know I'm not a cause of this. Can you really live with your self given your role in causing this? I mean come on! You may not be up close and personal with many of them but surely you know they are not really any different in any morally relevant way than your pet dog, whom you know can feel pain and suffering and whom you know have individual personalities and interests. Surely you see the consequences of suffering on a massive scale just so we can satisfy completely unnecessary taste preferences etc. I assure you, non-animal based diets, clothing and entertainment etc. are good for you and the environment and no one gets hurt. Wouldn't you be proud to know that you are not part of the problem. You would be doing yourself (heath wise) a big favor by giving up the cholesterol and purines etc. of animal products and you would be doing starving populations, the environment and of course the animals a favor as well. Think how great you would feel about yourself not causing all that pain and suffering. If you see videos like the one above and think "Oh my goodness, that's horrible, what can I do?" as I did many years ago, then the answer is simple if you have the courage to see it: simply forgo being a cause of it! Being a consumer of those products is a cause of that pain and suffering and killing, no less than the knife-man you hire indirectly. Without the consumer, there is no market and hence no harm. Don't worry, making this kind of change does not mean you have to throw red paint on people in fur coats or show up at rallies dressed in a big bunny costume or dress like some "hippy weirdo" or the like or even that you have to challenge all your friends and relatives militantly; just forgo the animal products and get on with life--no big deal, and no one gets hurt.

You are reticent. You must know I'm right but you don't want to disrupt your way of life, right? You don't want to be bothered right? A simple shrug of the shoulders makes the whole issue go away right? Or, you use some unfounded criticisms that just miss the point so that you may escape considering the topic further. You don't have to be right; you just have to convince yourself and you are disposed to believe just about any lame justification. Just think about the animals and all the suffering. Click here. You don't even know the half of it. The deep pocketed animal use industry hides it from you so that you can maintain that attitude more easily, so you can rationalize and compartmentalize. It's a massive industry and they have a lot of money to manipulate your beliefs. Tell people milk is good for them in enough TV commercials and they will believe it must be true. Trust me, when you make a move to cause less suffering by simply forgoing animal products, all that defensiveness and rationalization you don't even know you have, melts away, and you experience pride and empathy and you see these excuses for what they are--misguided. And, you'll see animals in a completely different way, without that subtle, underlying defensiveness and guilt in the way. See your defensiveness for what it is and have the courage to at least consider the alternative. Consider another video: Click here. Just think about it. 

You may be thinking, okay, let's say nonhuman animals deserve some moral consideration but that does not mean we ought to extend them basic rights not to be treated as property. Instead, one might propose, we adopt as welfare perspective. The welfarist position states that while there is no sound reason why we ought not use animals for many of our purposes, we should do so causing as little pain and suffering as possible while doing so, that the animals should be treated as well as is reasonable. First, this position assumes that these other animals can experience pain and suffering, something obvious to us all. Second, the goal of the welfare position is to minimize pain and suffering and by recognizing that nonhuman animals do experience pain and suffering, have interests and in fact are owed some moral consideration, this would seem to imply or at least suggest some kind of rights. They deny basic fundamental rights not to be treated as property but believe in a right not to be unnecessarily caused pain and suffering. The difference is that they will define necessary within the context of the nonhuman animal as property, making the interests of the property owner an assumed trump on the rights of the animal; not causing unnecessary suffering in the context of what the owner wants from their property will always shift what is unacceptable treatment in favor of the owner's interests. Without a basic right of freedom from exploitation, there cannot be any other rights. The fact is that when we accept a welfarist position we define unnecessary pain and suffering by the standard of what we want from them. The fact is that if something is our property, then our interests in the benefits we derive from the use of our property will always trump the limitations we supposedly impose on it. Third, society does tend to hold a welfarist position and this has not resulted in a reduction in inflicted pain and suffering as is commonly the goal of welfare campaigns. In fact, some argue that it has created more pain and suffering by legitimizing the notion that we may use nonhuman animals for our purposes. The welfarist position legitimizes the animal use industry and its practices and pacifies or militates against recognizing that justice requires that we apply the concept of rights consistently rather than simply regulate the causing of pain and suffering and that if we are going to recognize that these beings can suffer and that we owe some moral duty to them, then simply requiring that we not cause more pain and suffering than is required to achieve our objectives is completely insufficient. Just as humane slavery or humane murder or human rape among humans is incoherent, it is just as incoherent whet the victim is nonhuman. Think about that. For a more detailed exploration of welfare versus rights, see Gary Francione's web site: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com. See also: http://abolitionistanimalrights.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html. 

It is hard for many people to imagine a society in which nonhuman animals are not property. From this ignorance, some contend that we would have to provide the right to vote or property rights and other rights common among humans. This is not the case; we are talking here about the basic right not to be exploited, not to be treated as property. Some people criticize that rights for nonhumans would mean that our human right to own them and use them as we want would be violated. (Yeah, so?) This is silly in many ways. You cannot have a "right" to do something that breaches the basic rights of others, completely aside from the issue of nonhumans. We don't have a right to exploit black people, or women or gay people or any other class of sentient beings and we do not complain about this 'violating our right' to do so because we recognize that we cannot really have such a right, that basic rights not to be treated as the property of others is vastly more important than our 'preference' (not right) to exploit them. Your desire to exploit someone is not a justification for causing pain and suffering. You think it is a chipping away at your rights? No, in fact it strengthens the notion of basic rights and the just application of them. This is only beneficial and absolutely worth forgoing our preference to exploit other rights holders. We avoid seeking benefits through exploiting others because we know that for the system to work, we must do to others as we would have done to us. Others ask if this means we cannot have pets? Many people could not imagine what it would be like to not own slaves and used this consequence as a reason not to allow rights to slaves. But of course, the consequence does not provide a sound argument. The argument for justice in the application of rights is based not on whether it it allows us to continue to exploit some class of beings. The argument is grounded in the notion of ethics itself and the importance of rights and justice. People liked having slaves and had an interest in maintaining that status quo, but eventually a rights movement convinced us that justice is more important than this interest. 

Look, aside from all this philosophizing about rights and justice, it does not even have to be that complex. There is no need for exploiting nonhuman animals and exploiting them in the ways we do causes incredible pain and suffering. Sure it is plain to see that it's desirable to avoid doing this. There is no justification for exploiting others, any others, for our own taste preferences. 

Summary of points:

• Ethics refers to the principles and precepts that govern our social behavior and functions to make available the reinforcers made available by living in society. Ethical behaviors are judged by how supportive they are to maintaining the reinforcement value of society.
• Justice in the establishment and enforcement of basic rights is fundamental necessity for ethics and maintenance of the values made available by living in society.
• Justice refers to treating similar cases similarly unless their is relevant and sufficient reason not to.
• Rights are the protection of interests and a basic right not to be exploited as if the property of others is a right protecting that basic interest.
• The only relevant feature for who rights ought to justly include is whether the being in question has said interests to be protected, in other words, can experience pain and pleasure and hence has an interest in contacting pleasure and avoiding pain. (mere species membership or similarity of "mind," ability to use language etc. are not sufficiently relevant)
• Rights ought to be extended to all beings that have interests, that can experience pain and pleasure, something we call sentience.
• It is in our interests to include all sentient beings in the community of basic rights holders and exclude all non-sentient things.

If you are reading this and have not been so inclined to consider issues related to how we choose to treat nonhuman animals, my hope is that you can at least see that it is a perfectly reasonable position, one you ought to adopt for your own good. Whether you are convinced to cause less pain and suffering yourself is of course up to you. I hope, in that regard, that I have provided at least a little food for thought.

References

Francione, G. L. (2000). Introduction to Animal Rights Your Child or the Dog. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Francione, G. L. (2008). Animals as Persons. New York: Columbia University Press.