I admire Gary Francione, big time. I think he is one of the smartest people I have ever heard of and I believe he is, at present, the most important person alive in the context of helping prevent injustice toward nonhuman animals. That said, I'm reading one of his arguments and just had a few thoughts on it. I'm not sure I have come to a conclusion of my own yet but it's worth thinking about. Here is the argument, from the Animal Rights pamphlet on the web site at http://www.abolitionistapproach.com.
"We claim to take animals seriously.
We all agree that it is morally wrong to inflict ‘unnecessary’ suffering or death on animals. But what do we mean by this?
Whatever else it means, it must mean that it is wrong to inflict suffering or death on animals merely because we derive pleasure or amusement from doing so, or because it is convenient to do so, or because it is just plain habit.
But the overwhelming portion of our animal use— just about all of it—cannot be justified by anything other than pleasure, amusement, convenience, or habit."
It is common to see the argument that we ought not cause unnecessary suffering or death. Of course, that does not imply logically that the arguer is saying that causing necessary suffering and death is acceptable. I guess it might depend on how we define necessary. Let's say that necessary refers to having to do something in order to prevent suffering or death for ourselves. That's more that simple minor hardship. So, please note, I am not attributing this argument to Francione; that cannot be inferred from his statements. But, it is sometimes thought to be the case, so Francione's comments were the inspiration for my thoughts.
Is someone's need really a claim on our rights? Are we really prepared to appreciate basic rights not to be treated as the property of others as meaning 'as long as we don't need it.'? Should I worry that, if someone deems it necessary for their interests, that they may ethically exploit me. I would say no. My starving does not excuse my steeling of food for instance. If basic rights are going to carry strength and be useful protection of our individual interests to maintain our liberty, then it must be immutable to such a rider. Basic individual rights would mean very little if they could be trumped in this way. We could learn incredible things by performing horrible psychological experiments on children for instance. We simply live without this information because our need (it would prevent suffering and death for sure) is not a trump on the rights of children.
It occurred to me that we do revoke certain basic rights when someone commits crimes and we need to defend ourselves as a society from them. But the difference here is that they are an active threat and have relinquished their basic rights with their own choices. Being exploited simply because someone has a need that can be satisfied by harming us is completely different; we make no such unethical choices to cause this revoking of rights.
I worry that when we make arguments involving premises that "it is morally wrong to inflict ‘unnecessary’ suffering or death on animals." that we tend to suggest to some people that it would be okay if it were necessary. That's a false inference, a fallacy, of course but it does lead many people there. I would personally rather focus the argument away from how necessary our exploitation is and focus on the immutability of basic rights and the just application of them. I might change my mind, I do all the time as I mull arguments over and attempt to prove myself wrong or unreasonable. But for now, it's something to think about.