Customer Reviews

Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog?

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Gary Francione is the pre-eminent scholar on the topic of animal rights. If one was not already convinced of this by his body of work on the subject, this new book surely proves it. In it, Francione has synthesized ideas that he introduced to us years ago, and that he has persisted in writing and thinking about ever since. He presents an idea that is seemingly complex in a neat, comprehensible and embarassingly persuasive argument. Embarassing because the logic is so clear that one is left wondering how it wasn't completely obvious from the start.

An animal has the right not to be treated like a thing. It's that simple, not the right to vote or get a good eduction, but the right not to be considered merely human property, or to be used as means that serve human ends. Francione shows clearly why "animal rights" has nothing to do with treating animals "humanely", whatever that might mean. It is about treating animals honestly, in accordance with what we already say we believe they are entitled to.

Twenty years ago, "animal rights" was a term that most people had never heard of. Today, because of people like Francione, that is no longer the case. However, the fact that the term has entered the mainstream and become the subject of common parlance also means that it is sometimes misunderstood, even by those who claim to be its advocates. After reading Francione's latest book, there can be no mistake about what animal rights is and why it is desperately needed. Francione comes to the subject with intellectual honesty and he is one of a very few who has the courage to take his argument, and all of its component parts, to their logical conclusion.

There can also be no doubt, for all the bloody reasons Francione points out, that the societal recognition of animal rights is inevitable and that it is long past time to begin the implementation.

Francione's theory of animal rights forces us to make a choice: either we acknowledge that animals are morally equivalent to inanimate objects and we have no moral obligations that we owe them directly, or animals are members of the moral community to whom we have direct moral obligations. This second option does not require that we regard animals as the same as humans or regard animals as having the same rights as humans--it only requires that we regard animal interests as having moral significance. Francione argues that if we take this second approach--an approach that most of us accept already--we are committed to the abolition, and not the regulation, of animal exploitation. Francione's central argument--that the moral significance of animal interests precludes the use of animals as human property--presents a theory of animal rights that is more radical than either Tom Regan's approach in The Case for Animal Rights or Peter Singer's approach in Animal Liberation. Moreover, Francione's theory applies to all sentient nonhumans; he does not create another hierarchy of "special" animals, as is done in The Great Ape Project or other derivative works that accord special moral value to animals who are "like us." Francione's argument is that sentience is the only characteristic that matters for moral significance, and that any sentient being must have one right--the right not to be the property of others--if that being is to have any moral status whatsoever. Francione also makes clear that just as in the case of human slavery, it will not be the legal system that will end the property status of animals; significant social change will have to occur first. For Francione, the interesting question is not whether the cow should be able to sue the farmer for a violation of the cow's rights; the interesting question is why we have the cow there in the first place. The book is clearly written and easy to understand.

This is an amazing book. Eloquently written, well-thought out arguments, facts to back up their arguements. If everyone read this book, I don't see how our world would be the same. We would be unable to continue our misuse of animals without, at the vary least, a guilty conscience of knowing what we are doing is wrong. Highly recommend to anyone whether or not you already believe in animal rights.

The animal rights "movement" has become somewhat convoluted and to someone trying to familiarize themselves with animal rights theory for the first time, or to someone struggling to stay true to a pure animal rights approach, the mixed messages put out by self-proclaimed animal advocates can be very confusing. While many of today's animal "activists" are chosing to focus on taking small, incremental steps under a welfarist approach, Francione maintains that the insitutionalized use of animals as means to human ends is always anti-thetical to a true animal rights position, no matter how "well" or "humanely" exploited animals are treated. Francione's holistic approach makes animal rights theory accessible to everyone.

Professor Francione's philosophy has never been more concisely or urgently articulated than in this book. Paring the discussion of our treatment of animals down to basic elements and building his arguments with rigorous logic, Francione makes an overwhelming case that may even convince the casual reader to adopt a change in lifestyle. What makes this book so powerful is that rather than convince us that we should believe what he believes about justice and/or morality in human/animal relations, Francione shows that we already DO belive it - it's just that most of us are too confused or too lazy to act on such beliefs. The criticism(s?) of his "all or nothing" stance miss the point - Francione's abolitionist stance provokes all readers to examine the very foundation of their own opinions, and assists animal activists in making coherent arguments for the cause. A cup of very strong, if occasionally bitter, coffee that should wake up every American.

The three most well known authors of 'animal rights' books are Tom Regan, Peter Singer and Gary Francione.
Tom Regan's writing is good but I find it has inconsistencies, for example, he attributes non-human animals with inherent value, yet he asserts without justification that killing a human causes more harm to a human than killing a dog causes harm to a dog. Also, he draws the moral line between mammals and the rest of sentient life. Surely sentience, the ability to be the subject of experiences (both painful and pleasurable experiences), is the only factor that has an impact on the moral matter of our treatment of animals. A non-human animal may never experience the pleasure of playing a musical instrument or writing a piece of music, the satisfaction of completing a challenging essay or the stimulation of a game of chess - but neither will most humans. Whatsmore, I will never be able to experience the euphoria of smelling a multitude of scents at the park, the amazing anticipation of going for a run that my dog experiences and the joy of fetching a ball. These experiences are all subjective - to a dog (as an example of a non-human animal) going for a walk is as exciting as composing a piece of music and playing tug of war over a rubber toy is as fun as human competitive sport. We can't say that because the things animals derive pleasure from are not typically what we derive pleasure from that their experiences don't matter as much as ours. Going for an explore in the park amongst the myriad of sights, sounds and smells is to a dog what life is all about.
Of Peter Singer I say this, his writing is commonly confused as animal rights writing - he does talk about AR, but in no way does he support it. Peter Singer does not think using an animal for human ends (e.g., killing an animal to eat it, use in experiments or otherwise utilize) is wrong. He believes non-human animals (perhaps with the exclusion of the great apes - his reasoning: they are too alike to normal humans) are property for 'normal' humans to utilize as long as 'suffering' is minimalised. Singer draws an arbitrary line to protect 'normal' humans like himself from exploitation whilst justifying the exploitation of those who fall below the arbitrary line.
Francione on the other hand, argues that sentience is the only thing that matters in the determination of whether a being has the basic right to freedom from expoitation. He argues his case for animal rights clearly, thoroughly and succinctly without the major inconsistencies that appear in Singers and Regans work. At the end of the book he has provided commonly occuring questions and his respective answers. I found his answers intelligent, original and highly persuasive.
Francione's book is the bible (without the Judeo-Christian dogma) of the true Animal Rights movement. It is a must buy. Regan's work is still important and worth looking at because we must still recognise the importance of his pioneering efforts in animal ethics. Singers work should only be borrowed from the library - to be able to effectively deal with utilitarian arguments when they are presented.
Note: I have a sneaking suspicion that Singer or one of his clones (PETA??) was responsible for the reviews: "Francione not realistic and nor constructive" and "Going down a well travelled path". Singer must be very defensive now that his 'ivory'(the death of the elephants was relatively painless he assures you) tower that he built from sales of 'Animal Liberation' is starting to crumble. The big Animal Welfare organisations also have a lot to lose from Francione's criticism - they get a lot of revenue... from people who think their money is going to be put to good use.

Animal rights today usually conjures images of sensational campaigning by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), raucous protests and a variety of soundbytes that often pit humans against animals. Gary L. Francione's newest text: "Introduction to Animal Rights - Your Child or the Dog?" tackles this issue, demonstrating that such false choices are inaccurate and have little to do with our duty to "apply the principle of equal consideration to animal interests in not suffering." Given the current mind-boggling volume of animal exploitation in vivisection, factory farming and fur production - to name just three instances of animal usage - Francione argues that we have a duty-bound obligation to include and protect the interests of beings who are sentient in exactly the same way that characterizes our species. Francione surveys our "moral schizophrenia" - on the one hand claiming en masse that we do not support unnecessary animal suffering but on the other eating and wearing animals - and demonstrates lucidly why a moral revolution is the fulcrum for halting this completely unjustifiable situation. I unhesitatingly recommend this book not only to animal activists, but to anyone concerned with ethics and ethical theory. Ultimately, this is not so much a study of non-human animals but an indictment of yet another example of historically-laden prejudice that crumbles under the very reasonable demand for justification.

Gary Francione has published the simplified version of AR --the one that explains the basics of what works (and what doesn't). He validates the path I chose after decades of trying to work with, around, and over welfarist activities which only further entrenched nonhuman animals into the circle "use, abuse, regulation, enforcement, use, abuse, on and on." He addresses the confusion surrounding application of the equal consideration principle. Property (current status of animals) and humans (holding legal personhood) will always be treated differently -since property has no value except as it relates to the human owner, ending the property status of nonhumans, indeed ending animal domestication altogether, is where we must start.

Buy this book, a coherent, refined and logical approach to animal rights that gets to the root of modern society's animal problem without going out on a limb. Finally, understand animal rights without wading through philosophy or complicated arguments. And it might just change your life.

Finally! Here is a clear, articulate and complete book about animal rights. I can give this book to anyone I know without apology or reservation -and not feel I have to fill in any blanks. As Alan Watson noted in the forward, "Francione's work defines the standard in this area of inquiry." Anyone who cares at all about social justice will smell the clean air of truth in this analysis. Francione provides a crisp lens to assist sincere readers in sharpening their focus and their resolve to live in a manner that is consistent with the values we all claim to embrace. He brings together philosophical, moral, ethical and practical considerations to the often simplistically put-- but basic and common arguments for using animals for human purposes. In the meantime Francione reveals his own heart and humor even as he furthers his own unconditional advocacy for justice for animals. This book is required reading for any social justice activist.