The Issue with Gary Francione and Deontological Veganism?

[brimstoneSalad]

Im working on a resource page for TheVeganAtheist.com full of links for veganism and atheism. Should I not link people to Gary Francione's website and podcast due to him being a deontologist? Is this counter productive?

It's hard to say. I wouldn't. I'd focus on consequentialists like Singer, and PETA, and others.
If you link to Francione, maybe add a disclaimer?
I don't doubt that he has made arguments that people have found compelling, but I don't think it's conducive to the rational perception of veganism.

Although, I would say DO link to Christian vegetarian sites. That's less likely to confuse people (people can easily understand the difference between a religious and secular philosophical argument).

[TheVeganAtheist]

Im working on a resource page for TheVeganAtheist.com full of links for veganism and atheism. Should I not link people to Gary Francione's website and podcast due to him being a deontologist? Is this counter productive?

It's hard to say. I wouldn't. I'd focus on consequentialists like Singer, and PETA, and others.
If you link to Francione, maybe add a disclaimer?
I don't doubt that he has made arguments that people have found compelling, but I don't think it's conducive to the rational perception of veganism.

Although, I would say DO link to Christian vegetarian sites. That's less likely to confuse people (people can easily understand the difference between a religious and secular philosophical argument).

PETA? From my understanding, PETA further objectifies women (the mixing of sexs and veganism) in its campaign. Do you support PETA and the actions it has taken regarding euthanizing large numbers of animals it rescues, and its awards to meat producers for making minor changes to animal slaughter?

Who would you suggest I read to better understand the consequentialist position, especially as it pertains to veganism?

Ive been indoctrinated into Francione's position for so long Im at a loss at what views are rational and which are consequences of having been tainted by deontology. Ive absorbed a lot of Gary's language and arguments, and so Im having a hard time coming to rational arguments in support of veganism.

[brimstoneSalad]

Did you see my last reply on the other page?

I posted two posts in a row here.

PETA? From my understanding, PETA further objectifies women (the mixing of sexs and veganism) in its campaign.

PETA has a small marketing budget, and they create awareness through free press.
They have 'naked' men and women. But generally, there are more women (particularly celebrities) willing to do that than men.

"Sex sell"; PETA aims to make the most of their marketing budget. All that really says is that they aren't prudes. People will criticize PETA no matter what they do.

And they release absurd press releases to get free publicity. It cost them almost nothing, for example, to criticize Nintendo for Mario wearing fur suits. And yet, that exploded all over the press. Millions of dollars in free publicity from a press release with something silly on it. PETA knows it's silly. That's why they posted it.

Do you support PETA and the actions it has taken regarding euthanizing large numbers of animals it rescues, and its awards to meat producers for making minor changes to animal slaughter?

PETA does a lot of things; it's a huge organization composed of numerous people with different views.

PETA, like most non-profit animal shelters, euthanize stray animals that are unadoptable.
Their view is that the unadoptable animals are better off put out of their misery than released back onto the streets (which they may even be legally prohibited from doing anyway).

PETA are, on average, consequentialists, but probably more of the "reduce suffering" variety.

Personally, I favor neuter/spay and release. There are, however, legal obstacles to this kind of program, depending on the area.

In the city, the animals will live a few more years before dying by being hit by cars, or being poisoned by somebody or something they ate or drank (sometimes disease, or climate as well).
This isn't a pleasant death, nor is it a particularly happy life.
However, I don't believe that avoiding suffering is the point of morality. Rather, it is not violating the animal's will. Will to live is greater than that to not suffer any pain.

If free animals really wants to die, they are apparently perfectly capable of committing suicide by themselves (often by falling or drowning, or just succumbing by losing the will to live); they don't need our help to do that.
An animal not committing suicide doesn't mean that it's enjoying life, of course, or that more of them should be produced. It just means from wherever it comes, the will to live is stronger than the desire not to -- which is something we should respect -- but it does NOT mean it's right to cause them to be born into such circumstances of suffering, having no desire to come into existence from oblivion in the first place.

PETA are wrong on this point, but they may also not have a choice in a legal and economic climate that may prohibit the more favorable solution. So, they may be the least wrong that they are able to be.
They're much closer to being right than Francione, though, and probably only limited by funding and the law.

Who would you suggest I read to better understand the consequentialist position, especially as it pertains to veganism?

Singer is good, although he has some shortcomings.
There was a debate that was discussed in another thread where I pointed some of them out.
It's not necessarily where Singer is wrong, so much as something he missed or didn't understand.

Here it is:
http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... f=17&t=510

The link to the debate on Youtube is on the first page, I responded after watching it on the second.

Ive been indoctrinated into Francione's position for so long Im at a loss at what views are rational and which are consequences of having been tainted by deontology. Ive absorbed a lot of Gary's language and arguments, and so Im having a hard time coming to rational arguments in support of veganism.

In most of the cases, the results are the same. Generally, it IS wrong to use animals, because the consequences of that use are violating the animal's will and idealized interests.

Where you will find differences are in the exceptions to that generalization. In deontology, there are no exceptions.
In consequentialism, it's possible.

Try some thought experiments to work out what it would take to legitimately make ethical meat. Let's say, beef.

1. It won't be healthy, but it can be argued that it is up to a person's choice to harm themselves, provided they are not harming others.
2. Environmental. This can be resolved directly through offset and careful management. You'd need to capture so many greenhouse gases as to offset the environmental consequences of production. Use huge areas of land to disperse waste and let it decompose without runoff issues. This would be extremely expensive.
3. You'd need to provide for the cows' medical expenses, entertainment, huge tracts of land so they wouldn't feel confined, and you'd need to do it until their natural deaths. This would be astronomically expensive.
4. Assuming cows do not have much interest in what happens to their bodies after they die (much like atheists, but unlike religious humans), you could then harvest the tissue of the cows who died of natural causes after living happy lives.

We could even figure out what that would cost per pound. Probably about $200 a pound.

Saying something like that would be unethical (at least any more unethical than wasting the same amount of money on something else) makes veganism look irrational.
Saying something like that would be impractical, and a waste of money, and so people should just go vegan instead is reasonable.

[Anon0045]

Everyone is being selfish and value their own lives more than others. That's reality and should be factored into the equation somehow in my opinion.

Because something is overwhelmingly common (and no, not everybody does it), doesn't mean it should be allowed or encouraged by a moral system.
That's the same basis by which carnists try to excuse meat eating and other animal abuses.
It's how rapists excuse their actions.
Pretty much how anybody who aspires to do something that will harm others tries first to excuse those actions.
..

Now, for other reasons it may be excusable, but you can't just appeal to "everybody does something" to excuse it.

That's not quite what I meant. Everyone is selfish, just like every lion will kill you for meat. It's just the way it is.

Commonality, normalcy, and even unanimous agreement, doesn't make something right.

Is it normal to value your own life above others? Yes. But that doesn't equate to right.

It depends on where we start. Why do we assume that minimizing harm in favor of society is good? I'm not society and society is not an individual. I will strive to do good, and most people do too. For that, I'm not willing to sacrificing my own life, and I don't expect anyone else to do that either.

Because I'd like to be consistent.

It is consistent. Consistency doesn't mean blindly applying the same rule regardless of circumstances or consequence. Consistency means accounting for those factors equally where they are accounted for.

Yes, I see now that you are consistent. It's just that I didn't really think you would want to sacrifice innocents just to minimize harm to group/society, just like I didn't really think people believed what they read in the bible when I was younger. What I mean by not being consistent, is what you're advocating is more of an exception, like you want to make it work no matter what.

For the reasons mentioned already. It also has to do with how much I value society/group, my life,

People have a misapprehension of statistics in these extreme cases. You imagine yourself being in the situation, and you wouldn't want to be thrown in the water to save five others. Fine, but why do you place more emphasis on your empathy for the fat man, than for the five people drowning in the water?

That's inconsistency.

If you were drowning along with four of your family members, would you want somebody to push that fat man in to let all five of you live?

Actually, I do not expect others to kill people for me or my family to be saved if it's an accident, and I don't want/think anyone should expect that of others. On the other hand, I am in favor of killing in other situations, like when someone is being violent towards others for no good reason. I do not have a problem with revenge. Those who breaks rules, should be punished.

Statistically speaking, the chance of being on a sinking boat in the first place is very small. The chance of someone killing someone to make a place for me seems rather small as well, if it's a big boat.

It's small, but it's larger than the chances of you being the fat man by at least five times.

I think the consequences of people adopting a mentality where it is fine to kill innocents to save others is more problematic. I guess the issue is life vs quality of life. The mindset will lead to bullying, racism and maybe even murder.

I rather that we don't have the group mentality that someone is fair game to attack.

We don't have that mentality, certainly not in common situations.

We don't have that mentality in common situations, because we don't allow that line of thinking in common situations...

But this is the problem of deontology: even one life to save a billion is unacceptable when you put it in such absolute terms.
Sacrificing one 'innocent', to save the rest of the life in the universe would be wrong, even if that innocent will die anyway, after.
There's no limit to the extremes of harm that should be permitted to avoid committing the smallest seeming wrong with your own hands.
It's a more of a quest for personal purity, keeping your own hands clean of a wrong action, though the whole world burn for it.

That mentality is much more of a problem, and yields all kinds of irrational and harmful effects.

As a group/society, we can make decisions that would favor the group/society. From an individual perspective, I don't see how it would lead to harmful effects. I think if people have a quest for personal purity, the general attitudes will converge such that it will benefit most individual.

and even other animals, the planet and so on. We might save 5 people temporarily, but they go on to cause destruction and misery to other animals and breed more people into the world who do the same.

If you want to look at it that way, you can. If you want to maximize human death, that's another kind of consequentialism, with different motives.

This thought experiment assumes it is good to save human lives. If you want to maximize death, of course you side with the fat man.

There is no blood on my hands, no maliciousness. Accidents will happen.

There may be people who will push the fat guy in such situation, but if we don't accept that kind of mentality in our society, and it's part of culture, they wouldn't. I think simple rules are better for everyone.

No, they will do much worse. They will fail to lift a finger to fight evil. They will fail to make hard decisions, and just one person willing to disobey those conventions will rule with impunity.

You think that because you equate not saving with murder. I am not against fighting injustice. People won't lift a finger if they are confused, but if it is clear that someone is doing something wrong/evil, I don't see why they wouldn't fight against it.

Simple rules are not better when they don't work.
Religion is all about simple rules. Moral black and white. Controlling the masses who can't make their own decisions. Religion is the root and justification for deontology, and we've see where that took us.

But they are useful when they do work, and I think the golden rules is one of them. When things get too complicated and there's too much to think about, people tend to "shut down" and nothing gets done. That is why I am not a big fan of libertarianism for example. Everyone can't be responsible/knowledgeable for everything.

[Volenta]

Commonly, consequentialism will say that suffering is evil, or that violating the wills of sentient beings is the evil (these are both distinct forms of consequentialism). But NEVER both of those things.

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)?

The answers you will get are different in nuanced and complicated ethical questions, although they generally will lead you to the same conclusions. With questions that cover the borders between death and life you will get different answers for example (which is partly why the discussion between me and brimstoneSalad in the abortion topic was going on). And it is because they are very much alike, it gets much harder to tell which is correct. The discussion between deontology and consequentialism is much clearer.

Peter Singer used to be a preference utilitarian (which takes the position of the wills/interests of sentient beings) for most of his life. Preference utilitarian tries to fix the problems when pushing classical utilitarianism to it's limits. Preference utilitarian takes a (more) pluralistic* form (which shouldn't be confused for moral subjectivism, where every ones opinion is correct), and doesn't want to tell too much about what people's wills/interests should or shouldn't be. I would say that classical utilitarianism actually wants to dig a bit deeper; it tries to describe what pleasure and suffering is really about. That's why you will hear about hedonism when discussing utilitarianism, which used to be pretty superficial (putting someone a lifetime long on drugs would be moral for example). I would say that Henry Sidgwick and some complementary philosophers have refined this a lot. This is probably why Peter Singer has changed his mind and became an classical/hedonistic utilitarian. I would suggest watching this lecture of Singer which goes a bit into depth about the differences and the discussion about pleasure/suffering:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR-tzgU07XY

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_pluralism

[brimstoneSalad]

Anon0045,

I hope you don't mind, if I ask Volenta or Jebus to respond to you. I may not be explaining this in a way that is clear to you, and another may say it differently. Also, I have to go.

And it is because they are very much alike, it gets much harder to tell which is correct. The discussion between deontology and consequentialism is much clearer.

Well said.

It's also worth clarifying, there are many forms of consequentialism, so there's lots of debate within that sphere.

There are non-Utilitarian consequentialists (like myself), and of various kinds, and also many different forms even of Utilitarianism (as you mentioned a bit).
The conclusions are often very subtly different and nuanced.

It's only very clear to pretty much all involved in the discussion that some form of consequentialism is right (or must be right if anything is), and that deontology doesn't make any sense.

I'm very critical of Utilitarianism on some points, and yet 99% of the time where it matters or in practical circumstances I agree with the same conclusions.

I would suggest watching this lecture of Singer which goes a bit into depth about the differences and the discussion about pleasure/suffering:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR-tzgU07XY

I will try to check that out tomorrow, I don't think I've seen that one.

Could you please try to address Anon0045's question? You have a different way of explaining things, and I don't seem to be explaining myself well.

[Volenta]

It's also worth clarifying, there are many forms of consequentialism, so there's lots of debate within that sphere.

Sure. I haven't looked into all of them in depth though, so I don't feel comfortable talking about them.

There are non-Utilitarian consequentialists (like myself), and of various kinds, and also many different forms even of Utilitarianism (as you mentioned a bit).

I know you don't consider yourself to be an utilitarian, but I've always looked at your position (after some clarifications) as preference utilitarianism minus ethical egoism. It does come very close to the description of ethical altruism (wiki) if I'm not mistaken. Your meta-ethical conception of the moral worth of interests is also quite far reaching. How would you describe yourself?

Could you please try to address Anon0045's question? You have a different way of explaining things, and I don't seem to be explaining myself well.

I haven't quite followed that discussion. If I'm able to find some time I'll look into it.

[brimstoneSalad]

I know you don't consider yourself to be an utilitarian, but I've always looked at your position (after some clarifications) as preference utilitarianism minus ethical egoism. It does come very close to the description of ethical altruism (wiki) if I'm not mistaken.

Both are about equally accurate. Is a wasp more of a big ant with developed wings, or a slim bee that doesn't make honey? (I come to realize that metaphor is actually accidentally very accurate, on more levels than I intended).

Your meta-ethical conception of the moral worth of interests is also quite far reaching. How would you describe yourself?

Generally, consequentialism. That's about as close as I can come without getting into the gory details.

As you said, though, it may be useful to describe in terms of how it differs from well known systems.
Altruism may be too vague to be a very useful description.

It may sound tautological, but I prefer advocating the ethical system which results in the best ethical outcome. I have no problem with "progressive revelation", as such.
Due to a number of shortcomings (although most or all are not relevant in practice, they are very philosophically relevant, and it is first philosophers who must be convinced), I'm not convinced Utilitarianism offers this (such as the Utility monster).

I will say clearly that I am interested in the interests of other beings; being interested merely in their actual experienced pleasure or pain does not reflect the reality of behavior, and is comparatively arbitrary.
This is an issue of consistency with the reality of behavior, and its intent when put into action.

E.g. a mother sacrificing herself to save a child, even a 'mindless' drooling infant.
Killing the child is more wrong than killing the mother, because it's more so against the mother's will (the child presumably having no will to speak of). After killing the mother, killing the child does not then become less wrong due to order of operation. Although if you're going to kill both anyway it is more kind to kill the mother first, that is another issue.

I haven't quite followed that discussion. If I'm able to find some time I'll look into it.

Thanks!
I think he just needs classical utilitarian, or generic consequentialist answers. I tried to avoid any details that are contentious or overly specific to one interpretation.

[Lightningman_42]

It's also worth clarifying, there are many forms of consequentialism, so there's lots of debate within that sphere.

There are non-Utilitarian consequentialists (like myself), and of various kinds, and also many different forms even of Utilitarianism (as you mentioned a bit).
The conclusions are often very subtly different and nuanced.

It's only very clear to pretty much all involved in the discussion that some form of consequentialism is right (or must be right if anything is), and that deontology doesn't make any sense.

I'm very critical of Utilitarianism on some points, and yet 99% of the time where it matters or in practical circumstances I agree with the same conclusions.

brimstoneSalad, thank you so far for your insights on various forms of ethics. I'm curious to know why you do not consider yourself to be a utilitarian. I would also like you to clarify the differences between utilitarianism and non-utilitarian consequentialism. I've done a little bit of research on this, and I feel that I have a good understanding of consequentialism, but I'm unclear on how specifically utilitarianism differs from non-utilitarian consequentialism.

[brimstoneSalad]

brimstoneSalad, thank you so far for your insights on various forms of ethics. I'm curious to know why you do not consider yourself to be a utilitarian.

No problem.
See the Utility Monster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster

I would also like you to clarify the differences between utilitarianism and non-utilitarian consequentialism.

Utilitarianism makes decisions based on "utility", which is the greatest possible good (or least possible bad) for the greatest number.
How one defined 'good' and 'bad' vary by the formulation of Utility: Preferences, Pleasure/Pain, body hair (whatever). Some more or less arbitrary than others. The only one that comes close to making sense is ones preferences, since the rest are pretty arbitrary, but anyway.

I disagree with the idea that, if I benefit ever so slightly more by harming you than you suffer from being harmed, that it is my moral prerogative to harm you.

Not all consequentialism suffers from this problem.
E.g. Altruism does not. Also, consequentialism which is not directly associated with personal harm/benefit.