James LaVeck of Tribe of Heart and HumaneMyth.org has made quite a splash among animal advocates recently with his video entitled “Silencing the Lambs” and a response to criticism of the video by Farm Sanctuary and similar new welfarist organizations. In the video and his response to criticism, LaVeck rightly criticizes animal advocacy organizations that purport to protect animals while sponsoring or lending support to fundraising efforts that serve animal products and joining a coalition that includes companies that use and kill animals.
In addition to the video and LaVeck’s response, there are other positions and statements from LaVeck and the HumaneMyth website that are abolitionist in nature, including both the site’s name and the insistence that no animal exploitation can be “humane”.
Indeed, the message of the video and LaVeck’s response to the subsequent criticism include several important facts that Professor Gary Francione has been trying to make public for many years now: 1) that animal advocates have been working with industry to help them promote more consumer-friendly animal products; 2) that this collaboration has confused the public about what animal advocates are trying to achieve; 3) that advocates need to face up to this hypocrisy and stop pretending that any good can come out of collaborating with those who are exploiting the individuals they purport to protect.
Given so much emphasis on the denial that animal exploitation can be considered humane; given that James LaVeck and Jenny Stein include the word “justice” in their work (instead of merely “compassion”); and given the criticism they have received from welfarist organizations, LaVeck and Stein seem to be clearly on the “abolitionist side” of the abolitionist-welfarist spectrum.
All of this relatively positive news brings up a question, however: What are the similarities and differences between LaVeck/Stein’s Humane Myth approach and Professor Francione’s abolitionist approach? The remainder of this essay will focus on this question and seek to provide a short, but clear overview of some of the similarities and differences and their significance. A good place to start such an overview is to examine each approach’s mission or statement of purpose. [1]
Statements of Purpose
The Purpose of the Humane Myth Approach
The HumaneMyth site first explains what the “humane myth” is as follows: “…the animal-using industry and some animal advocacy organizations are propagating the idea that it is possible to use and kill animals in a manner that can be fairly described as respectful or compassionate or humane.”
To paraphrase for the sake of brevity, HumaneMyth’s purpose can be summarized as follows: 1) to correct the misinformation that is associated with the humane myth [propagated by industry and some animal advocacy organizations]; 2) to inspire a form of working for the peaceful transformation of our society that fully respects the inherent dignity and worth of animals and people alike; 3) to raise questions that will encourage thoughtful debate, without offering final answers or telling anyone how to think; 4) to air many points of view, so that a deeper truth, larger than any one of our individual points of view, can emerge; 5) to encourage as many people as possible to participate (because the more people become informed and involved, the better the outcome).
The Purpose of the Abolitionist Approach
A summary of the complete mission statement of the abolitionist approach is as follows: to provide a clear statement of an approach to animal rights that (1) promotes the abolition of animal exploitation and rejects the regulation of animal exploitation; (2) is based only on animal sentience and no other cognitive characteristic, (3) regards veganism as the moral baseline of the animal rights position; and (4) rejects all violence and promotes activism in the form of creative, non-violent vegan education.
There are also six principles of the abolitionist approach, paraphrased for brevity as follows: 1) all sentient beings, human and nonhuman, have one right: the basic right not to be property; 2) this one basic right entails that we must abolish, not merely regulate, institutionalized animal exploitation; 3) just as we reject racism, sexism, ageism, and heterosexism, we reject speciesism, since they are all equally irrelevant and arbitrary as criteria for membership in the human moral community; 4) we recognize that property status will not be abolished overnight, but we support only those campaigns and positions that explicitly promote the abolitionist agenda and reject those that call for “improved” regulation or promote sexism, racism, heterosexism, or other forms of discrimination; 5) veganism is the principle of abolition applied to one’s life and is the moral baseline of the abolitionist approach; 6) the principle of nonviolence is the guiding principle of the animal rights movement. Violence is the problem, and it is not any part of the solution.
A Comparison of Purposes
Similarities
Let’s begin with what the two approaches have in common regarding their statements of purpose. The second goal of the Humane Myth approach (working for a peaceful transformation of our society that fully respects the inherent dignity and worth of animals and people alike) can be said to be consistent with the abolitionist approach’s sixth principle (nonviolence is the guiding principle of the animal rights movement. Violence is the problem, and it is not any part of the solution).
Beyond this consistency, and a general agreement that our society ought to fully respect “the inherent dignity and worth of animals and people alike”, there isn’t much more to discuss regarding what the respective statements of purpose of the two approaches have in common.
Outside of their statements of purpose, both approaches rightly criticize those animal advocates and advocacy organizations that collaborate with industry, as explained above.
The First Difference: A Focus on Treatment versus a Focus on Use
The first goal of the Humane Myth approach (to dispel the humane myth) differs from the abolitionist approach in that, by focusing on whether or not use is “humane”, it focuses primarily on treatment, rather than use. While the Humane Myth site correctly states that the creation of all animal products unavoidably involves injustice, the inadvertent implication of focusing on whether or not use is “humane” is that if a certain use is deemed “humane” (i.e., if the treatment passes a “humane” standard), then such use might be acceptable.
By contrast, the abolitionist approach focuses on use alone, regardless of whether or not such use is “humane”. The abolitionist approach maintains that 99.99% of our uses of animals are clearly unnecessary, and that all unnecessary use is wrong, regardless of any questions of treatment.
A Second Difference: A Cloud of Divergent Opinions versus a Clear, Nonviolent Paradigm Shift
In the Humane Myth approach, goals three through six seek to “encourage thoughtful debate without telling anyone how to think”; “air many points of view”; “encourage [lots of] participation.” A charitable way to interpret these four interrelated goals is that Humane Myth wants to attract as many people and as many points of view (apparently no matter how divergent, biased, or prejudiced) and “air” those views into a large cloud of opinions that will hopefully condense into a “deeper truth”.
But what would this “deeper truth” be? Can we infer that the fog of many opinions will condense into something a bit more solid, or will it remain dispersed with no clear resolution of differences? It seems likely that, even if the cloud of opinion did condense into a solid “deeper truth”, such so-called “truth” would simply be an average of what a very speciesist (i.e. deeply prejudiced) society already believes about the moral status of nonhuman animals.
In other words, it is very difficult to see how this approach of averaging speciesist views, without taking a well-reasoned stand that strongly opposes such an average, could amount to anything more than retaining the status quo of speciesism and animal exploitation. Given LaVeck’s video and several other statements on the Humane Myth site, it is almost certain that such a cloud of diverse opinions or the status quo are decidedly not what LaVeck and Stein desire, but it appears misguided to think that merely “airing many points of view and encouraging debate and participation” in a speciesist society, without a clear and unequivocal vegan and abolitionist position as the basis for such “thoughtful debate”, could possibly lead away from speciesism.
The unclear purpose statement muddies the water so that the clearer statements against exploitation made elsewhere in the site and by LaVeck in his response to criticism of Silencing the Lambs become less clear than if there was more strength and consistency in the Humane Myth site’s content.
By contrast, the abolitionist approach is consistently and perfectly clear that exploitation of sentient nonhuman animals should be abolished; that veganism is the moral baseline; and that creative, non-violent vegan education is the path to the abolition of animal exploitation.
The abolitionist approach explicitly rejects speciesism and takes a clear and unequivocal stand against all unnecessary animal use. The abolitionist approach sets forth a clear position starting with a premise that most people already accept: unnecessary use, violence, exploitation, harm, and killing are wrong. This premise provides a foundation of agreement on which to educate people about a different paradigm; a paradigm of nonviolence applied consistently to all who can benefit from it. This premise and the strength and consistency of the content of the abolitionist approach make it the most education-friendly approach available.
A Third Difference: An Unclear Solution versus a Vegan Solution
HumaneMyth.org wants to inform people about the lack of “humane” treatment in animal agriculture. In the “Take Action – Choosing a Path” section, Humane Myth first tells the reader that many of us have been uncritically adopting the ways of powerful institutions and corporations run by relatively few powerful people. The “Take Action – Choosing a Path” section then goes on to suggest that the reader study the site’s content, “not as a means of uncritically adopting someone else’s truth, but to sharpen your sense of your own”. Presumably, given the context of the page, “someone else’s truth” is the greedy and corrupt corporations’ “truth” (but that is left to the reader’s interpretation). It is unclear what “your truth” should be, and in fact, Humane Myth avoids providing clear guidance about the truth or, more importantly, what to do about the “humane myth”. Indeed, the Humane Myth site has a glossary definition of the word “vegan”, but otherwise rarely mentions the word, and doesn’t mention the word in the “Take Action” section, much less suggest in the “Take Action” section that we ought to go vegan as a solution to the humane myth (this is odd and confusing, considering that the site elsewhere suggests at least a diet free of animal products).
By contrast, the abolitionist approach attacks the root of the problem: speciesism and the resulting view that animals are property and things. The abolitionist approach rejects speciesism and rightly recognizes nonhuman animals as persons. Because the abolitionist approach recognizes nonhuman animals as persons due equal consideration of their interests, it clearly and unequivocally identifies use, not treatment, as the problem, and veganism (i.e. non-use) as the only solution.
The abolitionist approach rightly sees property status as an insurmountable barrier to any meaningful animal protection, and has Animals, Property, and the Law and Rain Without Thunder to provide overwhelming evidence in the form of legal theory, case law analyses, and statutory law analyses in support of such a claim. But before we can even consider abolishing property status, we must have a predominately vegan electorate.
The Humane Myth Glossary
Finally, the Humane Myth glossary includes some problematic definitions; however, I will focus on only one here for the sake of brevity. “Abolition” is the first entry in the glossary. The entry distinguishes between those who call for an end to animal exploitation (i.e. abolitionists and new welfarists) versus those who do not call for an end to exploitation (i.e. traditional welfarists). The entry then goes on to say that some people in both groups call for kinder, gentler treatment, but it never clearly distinguishes abolitionists (as opposed to new welfarists) who call for an end to animal exploitation and completely reject appeals to “humane” use, from new welfarists who accept and promote appeals to “humane” use. For a greater understanding of “abolition” and the difference between abolitionists and new welfarists, consider reading Abolitionism versus New Welfarism: A Contrast in Theory and Practice.
The Similarities Are Encouraging, but the Differences Are Significant
There are encouraging similarities between the Humane Myth approach and the abolitionist approach, especially when it comes to a desire to end animal exploitation and criticizing animal advocacy organizations that are members of the industry-welfarist partnership. However, as I hope this essay has disclosed, there are also significant differences. It would be nice to see James LaVeck and Jenny Stein at least add more clarity, consistency, and concrete guidance to the Humane Myth site, if not overhaul the site so that it emphasizes vegan education throughout; discusses the problems of property status as a barrier to animal protection; seeks to shift the paradigm from animals as things to animals as persons due equal consideration; and identifies two myths: the empirical myth that exploitation and killing can be humane, as well as the moral myth that use is morally acceptable, given the fact that 99.99% of our use is unnecessary.
_______________
Note:
[1] Note that this essay presents an overview of the similarities and differences, not a comprehensive study of them. For example, there are many terms in the glossary on the Humane Myth site that could be contrasted with how the abolitionist approach would define such terms. There are also many details presented in the Humane Myth approach and the abolitionist approach that are consistent with their respective site’s statements of purpose (or mission), and add to the contrast between the two approaches.
