Tom Regan, author in 1983 of the ground-breaking ‘The Case for Animal Rights’, was the prominent animal rights voice in a debate aired on BBCTV to an estimated audience of 1 million people. Most people in the modern animal movement have little or no idea who Tom Regan was, let alone how to make the case for animal rights. Instead, animal advocates seem to think that ‘animal rights’ involves pointing to graphic images and calling out the ‘cruelty’ and ‘abuse’ they portray. Look at the language of the vast majority of animal organizations or modern ‘vegan influencers.’ They are drenched in welfarism: they sound little different then the RSPCA.
ROGER YATES: More than 40 years later, the global ‘animal rights movement’ has failed miserably… In the 1980s, Tom Regan, author in 1983 of the ground-breaking ‘The Case for Animal Rights, was being listened to – before the animal welfare movement marginalized and effectively silenced him. In 1989, Regan was the prominent animal rights voice in a debate aired on BBCTV to an estimated audience of 1 million people…
Most people in the modern animal movement have little or no idea who Tom Regan was, let alone how to make the case for animal rights. Instead, animal advocates seem to think that ‘animal rights’ involves pointing to graphic images and calling out the ‘cruelty’ and ‘abuse’ they portray.
Look at the language of the vast majority of animal organizations, large or small – or the language of any of the modern ‘vegan influencers.’ They are drenched in welfarism: they sound little different to how the RSPCA sounds, apart from the incoherent ‘go vegan’ tags they include. What is the main language of the ‘animal rights movement’ in the 21st century? It’s RSPCA language: Don’t be Cruel, Have Mercy, Don’t Abuse (Other) Animals, Be an Animal Lover…
Being ‘kind’ to our fellow animals is an RSPCA slogan. In 1996, in Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement, law professor Gary Francione wrote: “The need to distinguish animal rights from animal welfare is clear not only because of the theoretical inconsistencies between the two positions but also because the most ardent defenders of institutionalised animal exploitation themselves endorse animal welfare”…
Francione is correct – virtually everyone one asks will declare themselves totally opposed to ‘animal cruelty’ and believe that ‘kindness to animals’ is an important value. However, within speciesist culture, such socialised values have absolutely no connection with living vegan or with the concept of animal rights. We have not been able to move the public on from their opposition to animal cruelty to a position of respecting the moral rights of our fellow animals. And, as Tom Regan would argue, violating the rights of other animals is the fundamental wrong…
There is no obvious or immediate moral connection between the welfare language of the movement and the public coming to the conclusion that they should ‘go vegan’… A socialised commitment to animal welfarism simply means that the public’s solution is to eliminate the animal cruelty and the animal abuse (which they already oppose, and which our language suggests is our main priority too). They have these welfarist thoughts in their minds but without thinking they must oppose animal exploitation and use – the vegan animal rights message. SOURCE
RELATED VIDEO: