On Suffering and “Unnecessary Harm”
Jan 12th
As long as vegans keep basing activism on suffering, I don’t believe other animals will see liberation, true freedom, and true respect. The suffering of other animals, as I see it, is only the effect of a bigger problem—human supremacy, humans wielding power over other animals, humans controlling the lives of other animals—and is not the problem itself. Focusing on suffering takes activists with good intentions away from the issues that can really effect change, the issues upon which nonhuman animal oppression is really based.
Here is one demonstration of such a distracted focus that I recently came across online. Gene Baur of Farm Sanctuary appeared on Larry King Live in 1991 to discuss factory farming. Many vegans currently support efforts to educate the public on factory farming. However, if the suffering and “cruelty” of these facilities—instead of the human supremacy, the dominance—is the focus, then I see endless reforms as being inevitable, delaying and even challenging deeper change. Here is a transcription of one exchange between Baur and King (video interview here):
Larry King: “Are you opposed to the eating of animals?”
Gene Baur: “Personally, I’m a vegetarian. But that’s a decision each of us has to make for ourselves.”
Larry King: “So those who want to be able to eat it [meat] should be able to eat it. You’re just saying there’s a more humane way of treating them and killing them.”
Gene Baur: “Absolutely.”
This is coming from the president and co-founder of a so-called “vegan” organization—one that “has never and will never support so-called ‘humane’ meat”—one that “maintain[s] that the words ‘humane’ and ‘slaughter’ are mutually exclusive” (from their website).
My point here is not to criticize a single organization or single individual, or a single individual’s slip-up, if that’s what it was. My point is to steer us away from this general notion that “humane” is what we’re looking for—that “suffering” is what we’re against. These are popular views in animal activism today, even among “vegan” groups.
For instance, another “vegan” organization, Vegan Outreach, claims the following: “[I]t is naïve, at best, to believe that any system will really take good care of the animals we pay them to slaughter. If you say an individual is just meat, they will be treated as such” (from their website). I think this logic lures in many vegan advocates, because it seems to staunchly oppose all meat production, and it seems to suggest a way of seeing other animals as individuals, not just the products taken from their bodies—a kind of respect, then.
But notice that the complaints VO makes are only about how other animals are “treated” on farms—not the fact that they are forced to stay on those farms in the first place; that they are held there without their consent; that humans have complete control over their bodies and lives. VO does not complain about human supremacy; they only complain about particularly cruel instances of human supremacy. They are O.K. with the master-and-slave relationship—just not O.K. with specific, “cruel” manifestations of it.
I haven’t read as much from Francione, so I would be personally unfounded in making general, sweeping claims there. However, from what I have read, I’ve seen a similar trend in focusing on suffering/pain/harm, specifically “unnecessary harm.” I realize that some of our supporters at L.O.V.E. currently espouse Francione’s beliefs, so in critiquing these ideas I want to emphasize that I am not personally attacking anyone or the work they’ve done. We all mean to do well, and I condemn no-one. I just want to start a discussion about these issues, because I think they are vital to our really achieving liberation in the long run.
I recently brought up the following point about an abolitionist definition of ‘vegan’ on our mailing list.
————————-
E mentioned something that has been on my mind lately:
“[W]e ought to unequivocally draw the issue back to veganism (as the expression of one’s belief that it’s wrong to unnecessarily harm any animal, not just this one or that).”
I noticed this definition a couple of days ago at veganpamphlet.com, too, but I don’t feel like that’s what veganism means to me. (This is, of course, no offense to E or anyone else who currently sees veganism this way–only an observation and something to discuss.) I feel like avoiding harm is only one aspect (or result) of vegan living, but veganism as a whole suggests a larger respect, beyond “‘harm’ versus ‘no harm.’” I think veganism is more like one’s belief that it’s wrong to impose on the life of any animal–that it’s wrong to force, control, or otherwise disrespect any animal. This is, I think, largely why and how L.O.V.E. distinguishes ourselves from other animal rights groups (in our website’s F.A.Q.); our understanding of veganism includes an understanding of power. We see control over another’s life/body as problematic in itself, regardless of pain.
I think “harm” is often a result of imposing on other animals’ lives, but not always. For example, I would be opposed to sterilizing free-living bears (Dani has discussed this, too–I probably first understood this concept from Dani’s writings), because sterilizing them means we are in control of their bodies and their lives. Because we choose for them whether they can have children; we impose on their natural life. But sterilization doesn’t necessarily cause “harm” (at least not pain, suffering). Many claim such sterilization even prevents harm in the long run, because fewer bears will be hurt and killed for “getting in the way” of humans. I would be concerned about vegans supporting this sterilization based on ‘avoiding unnecessary harm.’
[Dani at The Vegan Ideal also wrote that this sterilization couldn’t be seen as a manifestation of “animals as property” (another Francione concept). So far in my own understanding, I feel like “animals as property” seems to hint at a bigger problem with power and control, but again I just don’t see it getting at the root. That is, power abuse also exists between people who are not each other’s “property,” so I don’t think “property” status itself is the problem.]
———————————–
Notice that, when we focus on pain, suffering, or harm, then we are not focusing on the underlying issue of power itself (control, force, oppression). Yes we cause other animals terrible suffering, and I want that to stop, now. But I don’t see that suffering as faceless and random. I think nonhuman suffering only exists in such quantities because we humans assume control over other animals’ lives. That is, I don’t believe suffering is the root of the problem, only a result. We assume a position of power over other animals, instead of living side-by-side with them respectfully; that, I think, is the root of the problem. A vegan world is not just a world with less pain; it is a world in which we live side-by-side respectfully with all.
Vegan activism is respectful activism
about 1 month ago - 3 comments
Veganism has been defined as the doctrine that humans should live without exploiting other animals. At LOVE we tend to discuss veganism as a broad, holistic anti-oppression or non-exploitation movement. In these ways, veganism is about tearing down oppressive structures, hierarchies, and old attitudes. Veganism is about questioning the status quo and, often, criticizing the [...]
Political Correctness, Political Expediency, and Veganism
about 2 months ago - 4 comments
This is a guest post from Ida. Ida blogs regularly at The Vegan Ideal, a site that “works to cultivate a process by which theory, learning and skills based on veganism as the principle of non-exploitation are put into practice.”
While L.O.V.E. takes an anti-oppression approach based on the vegan ideal of nonexploitation, there are many [...]
Giving meaning to veganism
about 4 months ago - 6 comments
Vegetarians often have an ambivalent relationship with the animal welfare corporation PETA. In the past, I had reservations about that corporation (e.g., the “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign), yet continued to distribute their literature. And when I did, I had to ignore that unsettling feeling of unwholesomeness, justifying my actions to myself in the name [...]
On not mistaking social service for social change
about 4 months ago - 4 comments
Ida’s recent post at The Vegan Ideal, “The Absurdity of ‘Triage’ and the Need for Social Change” recalled for me Paul Kivel’s excellent essay “Social service or social change?” in The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex. A version of the essay is available online. In this excerpt (this portion is [...]
Holistic veganism
about 4 months ago - 22 comments
As a vegan, I’m interested in more than patterns of consumption. I’m interested in dissolving speciesist attitudes, spreading an anti-oppression worldview, & ensuring respect for all. I oppose human oppression as much as nonhuman oppression. I value honesty, respect, & community. I value discussions about respectful communication, discussions about the confinement of any species, & [...]
Toward a Vegan World
about 1 year ago - 24 comments
The goal of a vegan world
I want a vegan world, because I want oppression to be really gone, for good. I don’t just want to get rid of the most “cruel” kinds of oppression in the short-term, leaving the bigger structure in tact, or leaving new forms of oppression free to arise in the future. [...]
Anti-Oppression and Animal Rights
about 1 year ago - 24 comments
How is anti-oppression different from animal rights? During the discussion of Steven’s post On Suffering and “Unnecessary Harm”, chernavsky wrote:
As far as I can tell, the philosophy promoted on this site is entirely compatible with the views of Gary Francione — and I’m actually surprised that he’s not mentioned anywhere. Here’s an excerpt from a [...]
Dropping the activist label
about 1 year ago - 4 comments
Over the past few years, I have noticed how many vegans divide ourselves into two categories: the activists and everybody else. Most of the time, the activist category consists of employees of animal welfare non-profits and a handful of “superstar” volunteers. I know some people who are very active in promoting veganism who don’t consider [...]
the permeation of privilege
about 1 year ago - 2 comments
The appeal of western holidays has long since worn off for me; I make it a point to avoid anything resembling a traditional celebration of Thanksgiving and Christmas because, in recent years, the consumeristic, privileged, exploitative aspects of the holidays have far outweighed the joy of being around a table with friends and family. I [...]
Why animal commodities still sell
about 1 year ago - No comments
I try my best to operate outside of the structures of oppression that are currently provided by our society, the economy being one of them. So much of our “American way of life” is built on foundations of — and perpetuated by — oppression. From the class of people who are kept in [...]
about 1 year ago
To accept veganism as an expression of one’s belief that it’s wrong to unnecessarily harm animals does not preclude veganism from embodying additional beliefs regarding wrongs done to other beings. Of course, “harm” should definitely not be read to solely mean “pain” or “suffering”. It is meant to be construed more broadly, as in ignoring or disrespecting another being’s interests (which, to my mind, is a harm).
about 1 year ago
Forgot to mention that the primary focus of Francione’s work is abolishing the property status of nonhuman animals so that they can become legal rightholders. He doesn’t really get into what specific legal rights various animals ought to have beyond the right not to be property (the means to our ends). For him, abolishing their property status is merely the starting point, but one we can do in our own lives by committing to the idea that animals are ends in themselves and to respect them by going vegan.
about 1 year ago
Thank you for writing this thoughtful post. Even before looking at what constitutes “harm,” I think it’s important to consider the word “unnecessary.” What is “necessary” and what is “unnecessary” harm? More importantly, who gets to decide when harming another is “necessary”?
I think it’s always questionable for somebody to make the decision about whether or not they think harm to another is necessary or not. It’s downright dangerous in situations of vast power imbalance, as is the case in our relationship with other animals.
“Who gets to decide the fate of those who are oppressed?” is the central question I have when hearing any of the above arguments. As long as it’s the oppressor, who always has something to gain from the oppression, I do not think there can be liberation.
about 1 year ago
Eric, thank you for contributing here to our collective understanding and examination of Francione’s work.
What I’m hearing from you is that Francione’s approach is not necessarily incompatible with ours. That is, even though Francione focuses on “unnecessary harm” and on legal status, his work doesn’t stake claim as a “be-all end-all,” and therefore an individual like yourself can follow his philosophy AND simultaneously follow L.O.V.E.’s mission, maybe as another perspective or as added context. Did I read you correctly?
I have to admit, at this point, I still feel skeptical. Along with Victor’s concerns–which I share–I’m worried about this sentence in the BVA pamphlet (2nd page of text): “In all but the most extraordinary circumstances, [other] animals cannot be used by humans without being harmed.” I interpret this sentence as saying, “BECAUSE it harms other animals to use them, it’s not ethical to use them.” But L.O.V.E.’s message is that unconsenting use is fundamentally wrong, not wrong BECAUSE it causes harm. I hope I’m not just nitpicking unnecessarily. My point is that, with this sentence in the BVA pamphlet, you seem to be entertaining the notion that, if we COULD use them without harming them, then it would be O.K., because harm is what fundamentally matters, not unconsenting use. Granted, you’re not going as far as Peter Singer and saying that it’d be ethical to create chickens without brains so we could exploit them endlessly without their suffering. But you seem to leave the possibility open to certain kinds of exploitation.
By fundamentally opposing all unconsenting use of others, L.O.V.E.’s stance is directly one of anti-exploitation, instead of anti-exploitation via anti-harm (which could break down under “extraordinary circumstances”).
I hope I am not just making stuff up, and I hope I am giving you (and Francione) a fair reading/analysis. I’d certainly love to hear more discussion in either case.
peace & love,
steven
about 1 year ago
I’m sorry I didn’t see these comments sooner. I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion, though am pretty crunched up with pre-production on my documentary, preparing a video to use for tabling, other BVA commitments, and general day-to-day stuff, so I am not able to stay on top of all this (though I have to say that these are the conversations I’d prefer to be having on a more regular basis, rather than what we are all used to). I will reply to Victor and Steven’s post here, then move to Victor’s thread for more responses, but I don’t know when I’ll be able to check back and see how the conversation is going.
First, to Victor, who brought up necessity:
1) necessary v. unnecessary harm
2) who gets to decide?
With respect to 1, the view as I understand it is that necessary v. necessary harm is already problematic. Our system of legal welfare takes it as given that animal use is necessary, and thus defines necessity with respect to whether a certain *practice* is “necessary” to properly exploit property as a means to the property owner’s ends. If the practice is gratuitous and it causes harm, then that harm is unnecessary and thus “cruel”. If the practice is not gratuitous (and much of the time this is guided by industry standards), then the harm inflicted is deemed necessary. Obviously this is a problem.
Any exploitive use of animal property is harmful to that nonhuman person. It’s *not* just because this involves pain and suffering, though in almost every case it does, but also because it involves disrespecting that being’s moral right not to be used exclusively as a resource. It means treating a who as an it, a being as a thing. That’s the harm.
As for necessity, at the very least we can demonstrate that it is technically possible for humans to survive without eating or wearing animals or without using them for entertainment. As with the pamphlet, I’m leaving vivisection and other biomedical use off the table. That question is handled in a different way by Francione, and I don’t have time to get into it, unfortunately. He writes about it in Intro to Animal Rights and Animals as Persons, if you’re interested.
With respect to 2, Victor writes “I think it’s always questionable for somebody to make the decision about whether or not they think harm to another is necessary or not. It’s downright dangerous in situations of vast power imbalance, as is the case in our relationship with other animals.”
I’m not sure I entirely understand, Victor. I mean, there’s a lot of ways to interpret this, since we’re speaking somewhat abstractly. Harm is by definition bad, so we should not be harming anyone. But causing someone pain is not necessarily harming them. If, for instance, a Secret Service agent tackles a politician to prevent him/her from being assassinated, there is likely to be some pain, but the SSA has not harmed the politician. It’s in the politician’s best interests to be caused a little pain to avoid being killed. But nonhuman animals are not being caused pain for their own individual good. They are being caused pain because it benefits those that are exploiting them. Even if there is no pain in the process, though, the animals are being harmed because this use is an *exploitive* use; it’s being done entirely in the interests of the owners, so that they may benefit, not in the interests of the animal property, who are merely means to their owners’ ends.
Victor also asked, “Who gets to decide the fate of those who are oppressed?”
I don’t really know what this means. I mean, legally the owners of property decide the fate of their property. Does that mean, who gets to decide whether animals are given the right not to be property or stay property? (given that we’re the ones that made them property, I’d say it’s up to us to undo that, if nothing else).
If animals are liberated, freed from their property status, then we do have some other issues, like who gets to decide the fate of animals that are living freely or still living under the care of those responsible for their welfare, but that is different than asking who decides the fate of animals who are “oppressed.” So, I think I’m confused.
Finally, Victor wrote that, “As long as it’s the oppressor, who always has something to gain from the oppression, I do not think there can be liberation.” I think from what I wrote above, you can see that I agree that animals will never be free as long as they are being used in exploitive ways, though I have reason to think that using the word “oppressed” in reference to moral patients (as opposed to oppressing moral agents) is problematic, but that is another conversation for another day (like, maybe this summer!). In the meantime, substituting “harm” leads to an interesting result: “As long as those doing harm to sentient beings have something to gain by doing so, those beings will not be liberated.”
Quickly now to Steven:
*Exploiting* animals is *always* a harm to them (even if it doesn’t explicitly cause them pain), and therefore it is wrong (though from this we shouldn’t construe that it’s *always* wrong to *use* another being–there’s an important distinction between use and *exploitation*). If something doesn’t cause harm to another being, how then do you determine that it is wrong?
Does that clarify it at all?
In answer to your first question, abolitionist animal rights is a requires the respectful treatment of *all* sentient beings, so I’m not sure how it be incompatible with L.O.V.E.’s mission (substituting “harm” for “oppression” and “harmed” for “oppressed”, perhaps): “L.O.V.E. works to promote the understanding of speciesism as a form of oppression and veganism as a positive, effective response to eliminating speciesism and achieving the liberation of animals oppressed by speciesism.” Abolitionists seek to end speciesism, too, and of course veganism is its baseline.
about 1 year ago
Eric,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Yes! I agree that making the distinction between necessary and unnecessary harm is a problem for the reasons you describe (the one in the power position/the owner, gets to decide if the harm is necessary to the one not in the power position/the owned).
As I understand the context of this discussion, it was about the use of the term “unnecessary harm” in the COMMUNITY post and on the veganpamphlet.com site. In my original comment, I was trying to bring out the point that you articulated, namely that the word unnecessary in the term unnecessary harm is problematic because it is defined by the one in the power position.
As to point 2, my comment was probably worded imprecisely. I would characterize the difference between the SSA example and the harm to non-human animals as one of consent: the politician has given their consent to the SSA to do what is needed to protect them, while the non-human animal has not given their agreement to be raised/confined/killed. The former is a more bilateral relationship while the latter is unidirectional. Again, this all was in the context of the problem of including the concept of necessary vs unnecessary when discussing harm.
“Who gets to decide the fate of those who are oppressed?” Again, poor wording on my part. What I was trying to get at is that I look to the power relationships embedded in these various theories (animal welfare, animal rights). Under the animal welfare view, the oppressors (humans) still get to decide, e.g., who is suffering and whose suffering is more important. If we go by unnecessary harm (again, this was in reference to what Steven was originally writing about), then humans again get to decide what is necessary harm vs unnecessary harm.
Finally, one comment about the analogous statement you brought up: “As long as those doing harm to sentient beings have something to gain by doing so, those beings will not be liberated.” I don’t think this is entirely accurate because the harm is enabled by the harmer’s power over the harmed. I think both power and a perceived economic/psychological gain need to be present. Nibert writes about this in more detail in Chapter 1 of Animal Rights/Human Rights.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. I am finding this discussion to be both interesting and helpful.
Victor
about 1 year ago
As far as I can tell, the philosophy promoted on this site is entirely compatible with the views of Gary Francione — and I’m actually surprised that he’s not mentioned anywhere. Here’s an excerpt from a lecture he gave:
“The foundational premise of the abolitionist perspective is veganism. As far as I’m concerned, veganism is the single most important form of social activism that anybody can engage in. And it’s not a lifestyle thing. It has to do with a commitment to non-violence, and it has to do with a commitment to the respect for persons, whether they are human persons or non-human persons.”
http://www.gary-francione.com/francione-rochester-lecture.html
about 1 year ago
Another community member brought up this point privately about another formulation of animal rights. Since this discussion may be of interest to others and because it strays somewhat from the original topic of the post, I’ve started a new discussion thread on the topic.
about 8 months ago
I know Gene Baur from Farm Sanctuary and I can assure you that he is a vegan and is opposed to any form of animal exploitation. In fact, Farm Sanctuary was one of the first animal protection organizations to come out with a brochure dispelling the myths of so called “humane” animal agriculture. Considering the interview you quote him from is almost 20 years old, I imagine Gene has either refined his position or he misspoke – I tend to think it was the latter.
In any case, I think that the idea of refraining from causing unnecessary harm would include not exploiting, confining, restricting the freedom of or killing animals. These are all forms of harm. The problem with the “rights” argument is that rights are things that the powerful grant to the less powerful. The rights of those in power will always trump the rights of those who are not in power. But from a moral standpoint, everyone, regardless of their position or power status, has a moral obligation to not cause unnecessary harm to others.
What is necessary, in my view, is defined as that which is needed in order to survive. Therefore, if I am stranded on an island and the only source of food is a (chicken, dog, human etc.) then it is not immoral for me to kill and eat an animal (including a human animals) because doing so was necessary for me to survive. By the same token, when healthy vegan options are readily available, confining and killing an animal (no matter how “humanely” it is done) is unnecessary. Therefore, any amount of harm that animal (and her family) experiences from being killed is unnecessary.
The moral concept of not causing unnecessary harm is not aimed at finding “humane” ways to harm others. It is focused on ending the exploitation of others, since exploitation of any kind is harmful.
about 8 months ago
Allen, thank you for contributing your knowledge & opinions here. I don’t feel I’m in a position to have a real extended debate about this, although others may be. My perspective of Farm Sanctuary is that they spend a lot of time working on welfare campaigns to prevent ‘downed’ nonhuman animals, campaigns to ‘expose factory farms,’ and so forth. I did more research before I wrote this blog post, but by now I’ve moved on and forgotten much of it. It’s possible that I misinterpreted “harm “; it seems like a vague word. If harm=exploitation, then I’d like to see it spelled out more clearly by these groups. At least back when I wrote this post, it seemed ambiguous to me. Lately I’ve been less involved with criticism and more focused on building up L.O.V.E.’s resources (‘making power’ as opposed to ‘taking power,’ then).
A brief note: You used the phrase “moral obligation” in your comment; this is something I wrote about in “Activism as Being, Not Doing.” I feel like “moral obligation” implies hierarchy–we are obeying some moral authority or moral code. This view can be very deadening in my experience, making activism a chore. Debates of philosophy and ‘ethics’ have generally started to feel tiresome to me. My view more recently has been very simple and based in my gut feelings: I want freedom and respect for everybody. I don’t even view this as ‘morals’ really–it’s just what I feel.
peace and love!
steve(n
p.s., Good point about rights being granted by the more powerful to the less powerful.
about 7 months ago
I found this blog about an hour ago and WOW. I am impressed. It’s cool to see a new, upstart vegan blog that has its own unique feel and focus. I love how you guys connect animal rights with human rights. I agree. I try to live a more honest, courageous, and compassionate life and that means being a better person toward myself, my family, my friends, my community, the entire human species, the entire ANIMAL kingdom, as well as all the other organisms that inhabit this marvelous planet. Anyway.
Enough about me.
I agree with the general philosophy of this website but this post not so much. In my opinion a vegan world will arise through a multitude of different philosophies and approaches. YES it’s good to combat speciesism. And it’s good to combat oppression and dominance. But it’s ALSO good to reduce suffering. And it’s also good to prevent unnecessary harm.
Of course, you Steven are also against suffering and unnecessary harm but it seems like you think talking about them too much takes the focus away from speciesism, which is more fundamental. On the other hand I’d say talking about reducing suffering makes people MORE RECEPTIVE to later on hearing about speciesism. I know that’s how it worked for me in my journey from meat-eating through vegetarianism to veganism.
We NEED to keep educating people about speciesism. But if Vegan Outreach is talking more about reducing suffering that’s OK too. Speciesism is a newer concept and a bigger word and might not be the ticket in every context. If I ever have a child I’ll start telling her from at least age 2 she should be nice to animals. Learning about speciesism will come later in her developmental process.
In conclusion, if John Q. Public wakes up tomorrow and decides to become a anti-speciesist vegan activist–I’ll be overjoyed! But if John Q. Public wakes up tomorrow and decides to go from eating a hamburger every day to a hamburger every week–well that’s still one step closer to a vegan world and I’m still going to be happy about it.
about 7 months ago
benhweaver, thank you for joining the discussion! I’m glad you like our site, and I’m glad you are critically engaging with these ideas. I think it’s healthy for there to be debate among us.
Remember that we don’t need to use the actual word “speciesism” in order to talk about the ideas of speciesism and why we oppose speciesism. We can talk about respecting all life, not using anyone without their consent, obtaining freedom for all, or accepting everyone for who they are. And we can illustrate speciesism: “Would it be OK for us to chain a human to a pole outside of a restaurant when we go inside to eat? If not, then why is it OK for us to chain a dog or a horse to the pole?” I think these are all simple ways to spread the ideas of speciesism without necessarily using the word.
In the seven months since writing this post, I have “cooled down” a little in terms of how I feel toward animal welfare groups. “Reducing suffering” is still not what veganism means to me, and I’m still not interested in spreading that message. But I have shifted a bit away from criticizing the welfare groups to, instead, spending time building up a positive alternative (L.O.V.E.) to more fully embody what I feel about veganism.
thanks for this discussion!
steve