Why Abolitionist Veganism?

Aren’t all vegans also abolitionists? In short, no. But they all should be.

In 1944, Donald Watson and colleagues broke away from the Vegetarian Society and created a new word, vegan, to describe vegetarians who avoided the use of nonhuman animal products, including dairy and eggs. In 1949, Leslie J Cross defined veganism loosely as seeking “an end to the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection, and by all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man.”

In 1979, veganism was formally defined by the Vegan Society as “a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practicable — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment.”

Although the definition of veganism and what it requires is often debated, misunderstood, or misrepresented, this definition is still the commonly used and coherent one. This definition forms the basis of abolitionist veganism.

Abolitionist veganism is a position developed by Gary L Francione that fills in some of veganism’s moral and practical gaps.

What veganism requires in terms of nonhuman animals is clear: we shouldn’t use them. The definition focuses almost entirely on veganism as a way of acting, not a way of thinking. This focus on practice has resulted in a number of problems, questions, and debates as to

what is and is not vegan

what are the morally appropriate and practically effective ways to advocate veganism

whether veganism includes human exploitation

what obligation, if any, do we have to adopt or care for domesticated animals

whether domestication and veganism are compatible

whether people who reject nonviolence are vegan, and so on.

Abolitionist veganism answers a number of these questions.

For those hoping for a broad view of justice, there is a lot missing from the original definition of veganism.

Simply saying “my veganism includes X, Y or Z” creates a multitude of different, competing definitions. Often, these definitions dilute the meaning of veganism, suit the speaker’s quirky politics, and create a lot of confusion about what veganism is and what it requires — often while leaving a number of the other shortcomings of the definition intact.

In contrast, abolitionist vegans adopt and promote the standard definition of veganism as a moral baseline, reject violence toward both human and nonhumans clearly, broadly, and by definition, and promote a position in which animals are understood as moral persons and members of the moral community.

The abolitionist position, developed by Gary L. Francione, stands out from other positions with its insistence on veganism as a baseline, its focus on sentience, its inclusion of human and nonhuman beings, its rejection of campaigns that will result in changes to regulation, not abolition, of the property status of animals, as well as its focus on an evidence-based approach to change.

The approach provides a clear guideline to those who

agree to the standard definition of veganism – that we ought not to use animals insofar as its possible and practicable — and that veganism is an absolute minimum of fairness
agree that sentience is all that’s required for a person (human or non) to count morally as a member of the moral community
agree that sentient beings should have at least one basic right: not to be treated as if they were property.

As a necessary consequence of these views, abolitionist vegans reject violence, including (a) direct violence, (b) racism, sexism, heterosexism, ageism, speciesism, and other forms of indirect violence and prejudice, as well as (c) the promotion of violence toward nonhuman animals through campaigns that promote regulating rather than abolishing animal use (e.g., campaigns that encourage ‘cutting back’ on animal use, vegetarianism, ‘reforming’ animal use to make it more ‘humane’, domestication, single-issue uses of nonhuman animals, and so on).

Abolitionist veganism: an evidence based approach.

Abolitionists reject welfare reform on moral principle, but also on practical grounds based on the available evidence. Over the last 30 years or so, welfare campaigns have encouraged people to eat ‘humane’ animal products. That encouragement has correlated with a per capita increase in the amount of animal products consumed.

As such, animal advocacy that has focused on reform measures have failed, obviously and consistently, to help animals in the short-term as well as to build long-term change; instead, they have increased the public’s comfort with eating ‘the right’ animal products, as evidenced by the growth of the ‘humane’ animal products market. This failure has encouraged some welfare proponents to promote the use of violence in place of education and dialogue.

In contrast, abolitionists promote creative, nonviolent vegan outreach, education and community organizing as the groundwork to abolish animal use.