TheVeganAtheist wrote:I feel that using another sentient being as a machine for our ends, without their expressed permission is a wrong.
There's no reason that would be wrong, unless it led to harm of that being in some way by violating its interests (or, of course, harm of other beings).
We do not have an inherent interest in not being used. We have only come to associate use with abuse, but it is not intrinsically true.
Perhaps I can not open doors, due to an injury. So, I lie in wait for an unsuspecting pedestrian to enter a building, thus opening the door, and I slip in behind him or her. I have used that person as a machine to my ends, and he or she did not give express permission for me to do it. Have I wronged him or her?
If this was a secure building, and that person was punished for accidentally letting somebody in, then yes.
If this is a public facility, and the person suffered no injury from it, why would anybody argue that there's something wrong with this?
If something is wrong, it's because of the consequences it yields, not the thing in itself -- except that one thing which is ultimately wrong, and by which metric those consequences are measured.
It's not wrong to use any being, human or non-human animal, for your own ends as long as that use doesn't compromise their own ends.
Saying it is, without valid explanation, is what makes veganism look irrational.
There could be situations in which vegetarianism rather than veganism, or even human slavery, could be permissible. Many conceivable situations, if you have a good imagination. But they aren't situations that are viable or probable in the modern world.
I'll give you one for slavery (and it's kind of also a point where people wrongly criticize the Old Testament, but that's not my fight and I don't really care):
In the ancient world, food was expensive. Much more so than today. People barely fed themselves.
In times of war, or in punishment for crimes, society could not afford to keep prisoners, and there was no notion of rehabilitation. It was death, or slavery. And a slave could always choose death.
Despite its abuses, slavery was a means by which a captured population could be allowed to live, where otherwise they would have to be killed (or released to attack again).
Anyway, the modern context is very different.
As such, animal products and human slavery are wrong today because of the harmful consequences they have to those beings' interests. They don't help matters, and they're not the least of evils in a dark world, they're just horrible horrible things because of their consequences.
There are always contexts of possible special situations where things that would be bad can be the least of wrongs available.
TheVeganAtheist wrote:From what ive read and watched of Gary Francione, he comes to the conclusion that its wrong to use animals because they have the ability to suffer and are sentient and therefore have an interest in their own life that we ought to respect. Have I missed something? Isnt that a consequentialist position?
That's not consequentialism, although he's trying very hard to make it sound like consequentialism to appear rational.
That's just a non sequitur which he has phrased in such a way to make it look like he's explaining something, but is in fact just asserting two unrelated matters, and pretending the latter substantiates the former.
I think you may have heard it so many times, and for so long, you haven't really evaluated the logic (the lack thereof) of what he's saying.
It's like saying "It's wrong to use animals because 1 + 1 = 2, and 2 is an even number."
...And?
Animals have an interest in their lives. They have many interests, indeed. But unless they have an explicit interest to not be used without harming them, there's nothing wrong with that.
Only the most paranoid, petty, and psychologically unbalanced people care that somebody else "used" them, when that use was merely incidental and not malicious. It's very unlikely that any non-human animals have the elaborate and convoluted mental landscape to be that irrational. They don't care that we're using them, they care that we're hurting them.
TheVeganAtheist wrote:why not both? which side do you side on? Is one more rational or defensible then the other? Any suggested reading material (authors, books, etc)?
Suffering is bad when it violates the wills of sentient beings -- that is, it's bad because of the consequences.
If a sentient being wills to suffer, then that's not wrong.
Violating the wills of sentient beings is what's important.
Violating a sentient being's will to live by killing it instantly, however, won't necessarily cause suffering, but it is wrong.
Arbitrarily valuing suffering regardless of the will of the being isn't very meaningful, or useful a metric for anything.
It's all about will.
TheVeganAtheist wrote:Is Gary's war on welfare reform an example of this? Is there any rational defense for this?
Yes. And no, he has no rational defense.
TheVeganAtheist wrote:From my understanding, from Francione, is that if you improve the lives of animals (even my insignificant amounts) the industry uses that as a good PR and markets more products to more people. Should we not take a firm stance on no animal use (especially in regards to food in affluent countries), not take a position of making the living arrangements of farmed animals marginally better while setting into stone a long future industry?
This is another case of Francione pretending to substantiate his arguments like a consequentialist. He's not a consequentialist, and he has rejected that many times.
So to the claim itself:
This is an empirical claim, one that is unsubstantiated. This is not a philosophical claim. If Francione wants to assert this, he should provide some evidence for his assertion, not wild speculation. Empirical claims require empirical evidence to validate them.
We can speculate all day, but changes in the industry reduce animal suffering. This is the only fact available.
After that, does this "consciousness raising" help people take more steps, beyond improved welfare to veganism? Or does it promote more people to eat more meat for the rest of time once they're satisfied with animal treatment?
It could go either way. But to argue either, you need evidence. The only evidence we currently have supports animal welfare. It is irrational to oppose it on speculative grounds.
If new evidence comes to light that supports opposing Welfare, then and only then would it be appropriate to do so.
That's how science works.
TheVeganAtheist wrote:is consequentialism the best method we have then? How can we limit the bad things people do due to faulty justifications?
Yes, it's not just the best, it's the only valid method.
Faulty justifications are due to biases, we have to control those by controlling for bias as well as we can. Blind studies can help. Generally, Scientific methodology has produced many good approaches for controlling for human bias that can be adapted to these questions.