Gary Francione

Gary Lawrence Francione (May 24, 1954) is Professor of Law at Rutgers University in New Jersey (United States). He was the founder and director of the Rutgers Animal Rights Law Center. He is a specialist in animal rights and one of the pioneers in the abolitionist theory of non-human animal rights. He considers that the reform movement for the welfare of non-human animals is wrong in theory and practice, since animals are currently considered as just another property. Francione believes that the abolitionist movement should have a moral demarcation line in veganism, rejecting the consumption of any product of animal origin. His work on animals has focused on three themes: (1) the status of non-human animals as property, (2) the differences between animal rights and animal welfare, and (3) a theory of animal rights based on the single sentience.

The status of animals as property

In Animals, Property, and the Law (1995), Francione argues that because non-human animals are the property of humans, the laws that supposedly require treatment humans and prohibit inflicting unnecessary harm do not provide any significant level of protection for the interests of non-human animals. For the most part these laws and regulations require only that non-human animals receive the level of protection that is required for their use as human property. Non-human animals only have values as commodities, and their interests are not taken into account in a moral sense. As a result of this, despite the fact that there are laws that are supposed to protect non-human animals, Francione believes that we treat non-human animals in a way that would be considered torture if humans were subjected to it. Finally, Francione adds that there are a series of legal, social and economic powers opposed to recognizing the interests of non-human animals unless it implies an economic benefit for people.

The differences between animal rights and animal welfare

In Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement (1996), Francione explains that there are significant differences in theory and practice between animal rights (requiring the abolition of exploitation animal) and animal welfare (which agrees to regulate exploitation to make it more humane). The abolitionist position defends that the use of non-human animals cannot be justified, while the regulationist position accepts that the use in certain circumstances is acceptable.

Francione calls those who defend animal rights but support animal welfare regulation as a mechanism to increase recognition of the intrinsic value of non-human animals neo-welfareists. He considers that said position is inconsistent, since in practice it legitimizes the use of non-human animals and reinforces said use, since citizens appeal to said ethical treatment to continue consuming products of animal origin.

A theory of animal rights based on single sentience

In Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? (2000), Francione argues that an abolitionist theory should not require animals to have cognitive characteristics beyond sentience to be considered members of of the moral community, which would include the basic and pre-legal right not to be owned by humans. He rejects the position that non-human animals must have human-like cognitive characteristics, such as language, some intellectual development, or some autonomy to have the right not to be used. Francione derives this right from the principle of equal consideration, by which he maintains that if animals are considered property, their interests cannot receive equal consideration.

In relation to this, Francione points out that people live in a moral schizophrenia in their relationship with other animals. On the one hand, we take the interests of non-human animals seriously, to the point that many people live with animals that they regard as part of the family, ascribing them intrinsic moral value. On the other hand, because non-human animals are considered property, people use an endless number of animal products, and only consider non-human animals when they represent a financial benefit.

The Animal Rights Movement

Francione's position differs significantly from other authors, such as Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation. Singer, who can be considered a utilitarian philosopher, rejects moral rights as a general matter, while accepting the fact that non-human animals can feel pleasure or pain. i>, and thus enter into a certain human moral status. He maintains that discussions about the death or not of non-human animals by human beings can be defined from a calculation of "egalitarian" interests, where the parties in conflict benefit equally. In short, the disagreement between Singer and Francione consists of the "statute" of property that non-human animals can have, while the first does not have a clear position on the matter, the second does make a strong criticism, considering that: "Do not reject the status of property in animals is the same as not rejecting human slavery" (In: Bentham's (and Singer's) Error, Theorem, Vol. XVIII/3, 1999).

Francione also differs in his stance from Tom Regan, author of The Case for Animal Rights and Empty Cages. Regan advocates an abolitionist position, but limits it to animals that have cognitive characteristics that go beyond just sentience. Besides, Regan maintains that death always does more damage to humans than to non-humans. According to Francione, although Regan distances herself from Singer's position, this aspect is very close to Singer's vision that death itself would not be a problem for most non-humans. Furthermore, Francione points out that our inability to understand the meaning of non-human death does not mean that a sentient animal has no interest in continued existence.

Influenced by Gary L. Francione

Gary L. Francione has exerted an important influence within the movement for animal rights, which has led various activists and organizations to modify their lines of action, and to focus on the defense of veganism and criticism of speciesism along an abolitionist line.