California's Proposition 2 has stirred up plenty of controversy, both between the animal exploitation industries and the animal protection industry, and between animal advocates.

Proposition 2, a ballot initiative that will be voted on this November, is intended to eliminate certain confinement practices used by animal agribusiness, albeit with some exemptions. Basically it would require that, for the majority of each day, calves, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that would allow them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs, and turn around freely. In other words, it doesn't eliminate confinement systems; it merely modifies some of them to be slightly less restrictive (in the case of California, this mainly affects egg production). Exceptions are built in for seven-days prior to a pregnant pig's expected date of delivery, and for 4-H programs, rodeos, fairs, research, veterinary purposes, slaughter, and transportation. Violations of the regulations would be misdemeanors, restricting the potential fine to $1,000 and/or imprisonment up to 180 days.

Recognizing the disagreement between different types of animal advocates over Proposition 2, Doris Lin, the host of About.com's new animal rights topic, is hosting a debate on Proposition 2. Professor Gary L. Francione, author and abolitionist animal rights proponent, represents the con argument, while the the pro argument is offered by animal welfare proponent Paul Shapiro, the Senior Director of the Humane Society of the United States' Factory Farming Campaign. Shapiro calls the ballot measure Making History for Animals, while Francione calls it A Losing Proposition. Of course, it's a strange debate because there's no real back and forth between the two debaters, not to mention the fact that HSUS's mission is modifying animal use, not abolishing it.

While you're off reading online debates, you might be interested in some other topics hosted by Opposing Views. The site asks a lot of controversial questions, not just animal-related issues, and it seems to be fairly well designed and easy to navigate. In addition to calling on "experts" (mostly special interest groups) to debate the subject, Opposing Views invites your comments, involving you directly in the debate. The issue of "pet" ownership finds Francione and HSUS in opposition once again. You can also read their arguments and the arguments of other "experts" on a variety of related topics, including using animals in research, keeping animals in zoos, and "meat"-eating. There's no debate on Proposition 2 over there as of yet, but they do take suggestions for topics, and maybe Opposing Views would provide a better format for that debate than the statements offered at About.com, seeing as how it allows for counterpoint and objections.

Back to Proposition 2, of course the animal exploiting industries are totally opposed. They don't want animal advocates making any inroads on regulating how they use animals. They see the measure potentially leading to other regulatory reforms around the country, so they have more or less united in their opposition to it.

Seems intuitive how an animal-friendly person might vote, right? Well, consider that this measure does not come close to questioning animal use; it merely modifies how animals are used in such a way as to make it seem somewhat less objectionable. Also consider the following:

1. Veal crates and gestation crates (for pigs) have already been phased out or are being phased out by the industries in California as this debate goes on. At this time, there is no indication that doing so is harming the industries or reducing consumption of flesh products from calves and pigs.

2. Proposition 2's regulations apply only to producers in California. It is not a ban on products produced using these methods. Stores seeking less expensive eggs to sell their customers may buy them from out-of-state producers, and egg companies that don't want to follow the new regulations can move their operations out of state.

3. Proposition 2 does not end the confinement and torture of animals from their artificially-induced births to their untimely killings. If successful, sustained, followed, and enforced, Prop 2 will only allow certain animals a bit more space to move and adjust their position while they are being confined, and for only part of the day. Even then, all bets are off during transport and slaughter. It does not address the myriad other harms caused to animals throughout the production process.

4. Egg production systems in Europe have gone cage-free, and the barn systems they are using there have even received a seal of approval from the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals, which leads consumers to believe that the animals' welfare is being given top priority. The video below shows that there are plenty of problems inherent in cage-free systems.



What do you make of all this debate over Prop 2? What do you make of the proposition itself? Share your comments below

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

Labels: animal law, animal welfare, legislation

You know, it's bad enough that I wasn't raised vegan. But now Jennifer McCann comes along with Vegan Lunch Box to rub it in. Vegan Lunch Box is delicious proof that vegan kids can actually have more exciting (and healthier!) lunches than all the other kids their age, so long as their parents are willing to pick up this book and follow its easy recipes (and maybe pack one of these delightful lunches for themselves while they're at it).

Considering how far veganism and vegan cookbooks have come in just the past decade, moms and dads from a generation ago may be forgiven for foisting Oscar Meyer on us, I suppoooose. Even then I can only let that slide because veganism was practically unheard of by most American parents until relatively recently, and of course this book did not exist back then. However, today's parents have no excuse to send their kids off to school with mediocre lunches (or worse, to eat cafeteria food), so Vegan Lunch Box should be considered a required parenting text.

All 130 enclosed recipes were vetted by McCann's son, James, who rated every meal she packed up for him to take to school in clever, bento-inspired lunch boxes. Only five-star meals made the final cut, so you and your kids are in for the very best of the many recipes McCann concocted to keep James eating healthy and, remarkably, to make him the envy of other kids at school. No scorned, deprived vegan here! It's nice to have a parent that cares so much, isn't it?

Vegan Lunch Box offers up full lunch menus, as well as the recipes to make these menus a reality (included in back is a thoughtful allergen-free index). Meals range from those designed to be quick and easy to creative inspiration for special occasions. Along the way, McCann has included lots of little tips and bits of advice on topics such as keeping sandwiches interesting, vegan cheese, and getting kids to eat salads, as well as a collection of full-color vegan lunch photos.

I don't have any kids myself, but I can certainly remember being at that age where I suffered through school lunches and unimaginative packed lunches. If you are raising kids, I highly recommend buying this book and putting it to good use. I'm sure your children will be much happier exploring these options than settling for what is typically available to them--the deprived kids will be the ones eating the same few lunches over and over again--and they will be learning to eat healthier at a younger age, too. It certainly speaks well of veganism to have such fun, tempting lunches out there in front of all the other kids at school. Maybe they'll want to ask their own parents for a vegan lunch box, too. Lunch box advocacy, anyone?

Even if you don't have or don't plan on having children of your own, you now have a perfect gift to give to people who do, vegan or not. Frankly, I'm looking forward to trying some of these recipes for myself. I think they'll be fun for picnics, lunch breaks on a weekend hike, or even for those occasions when I'm traveling long distances without a healthy vegan meal to be had anywhere along the way (I'm glaring at you, airports of America).

Labels: book, vegan cooking, vegan family, vegan food, vegan recipes

I was very busy this past weekend at the Animal Rights 2008 National Conference. However, I don't feel that my time was spent just being busy for the sake of "busyness." For the most part, it seemed like a productive use of my time. I could probably spend hours attempting to gather together my thoughts on everything that I experienced, heard, learned, did, and didn't do. Since I don't have that kind of time, I will just write what comes to the top of mind in one sitting.

No conference is perfect--I could probably spend hours on this subject, too--but, while I would prefer that the AR conferences were more focused on the core issues of animal rights, particularly AR education, instead of welfare advocacy (aren't there plenty of conferences already that focus on reforming animal husbandry?), there's something energizing about being among so many different people gathered together to discuss various aspects of animal advocacy, and I did have a number of constructive conversations in that vein with various attendees over the course of the long weekend.

Compared to previous years, I detected a general shift from the escalated welfarism vs. abolitionism debate to a sort of fatigue on the subject. A lot of people I spoke to did seem interested in gaining a better understanding of what abolitionism is about (there are some real misconceptions). One person in particular seemed really eager to learn more about abolitionism, dialoguing with me on and off throughout the weekend. He plans to read up on Francione now.

A lot of other conversations on the subject transpired one-on-one and in social settings after conference events had ended for day, which gave me more of an opportunity to advocate the abolitionist viewpoint. I saw a lot of nodding heads and, at one point, someone came up to tell me they had heard good things about what I was saying at the conference. It's hard to quantify the impact, but based on my intuitions about receptivity versus resistance and conflict, things seemed to go rather well, encouraging me to keep coming back to promote rights-based vegan advocacy.

Within my speaking roles, I didn't really have quite as much of an opportunity to make an extensive or complete case for abolitionism, but the theory served as a compass to guide my work every step of the way, whether introducing the Boston Vegan Association (which I founded and run) as an abolitionist vegan advocacy group at the Newcomer Orientation and Running a Local Group panel (allowing me to elaborate a little on what that means), discussing how my abolitionism stems from the principle-centered leadership approach I follow and advocated during my talk on the Developing Leadership Skills panel, and discussing on the Perceptions of Animals panel how language can be used to help people see other animals as ends in themselves rather than perpetuating their status as a means to our ends.

The What Rights? Which Animals? rap session I facilitated came out pretty quickly toward abolitionist rights-based advocacy once the basis for rights was identified, necessarily including all sentient animals. This gave the group time to discuss the problem of the property status of animals and the need for vegan education (though the turnout was a bit lighter than I would have hoped for, given the widespread lack of education regarding animal rights theory).

Despite my penchant for talking, I also did a fair amount of listening, which led to some learning. One key reminder this weekend was that many people in animal advocacy strongly promote one view over another as the most effective in large part because of their own initiation into animal advocacy (a pamphlet at a concert leads one to do leafletting, an experience with a marine mammal leads another to focus on marine animal protection, etc.). There's a passion for that which made such a major impact in their lives, along with a certain presumption that what worked for them is what will work best for others, which is telling. Of course, this isn't true for everyone (including myself), but it seems fairly common, and is useful when determining whether or not it is worth it to try and convince someone to consider a other approaches, because those advocates tend to be pretty entrenched in their own idea of what is best. To that end, the conference largely serves as an opportunity for advocates of various sorts to recruit newcomers to their own mission (and for authors to promote and sell books).

Talking to people whose focus was different than mine also reminded me how helpful it can be to have people driven to work on other issues that are complementary to rights advocacy and vegan education, such as exposing government repression of activists and providing access to plant-based foods for economically disadvantaged communities. As long as they don't work against abolition, it seems that they could help advance it by easing other key obstacles.

On a related note, some long-time conference participants with anti-racism experience were kind enough to take some time to answer questions I had. Veganism is a rather white movement, and I was recently reminded how far I have to go to better understand how my lifelong privilege as a heterosexual white male in a system fraught with institutionalized racism affects those around me, much less my ability to work with people of color as allies in vegan advocacy and other social justice issues.

I think more white vegan advocates need to deeply explore this issue (the conference itself needs to do some work to better facilitate this) and work together to promote anti-racism in our movement so that we can be more effective in eliminating oppression of all beings. Our exploitive system is itself a major part of the reason other animals are oppressed, not just their status as property (which comes from a sense of human entitlement that connects rather obviously to white privilege once you start becoming aware of it).

Thanks to pattrice, lauren, and other conference participants for the advice you gave me and for pointing me in the right direction. As I steep myself further in this subject (thanks to Breeze for the reading list!), I may write about it here at AAFL.

Finally, I also did some promoting at the conference, raising awareness of AAFL, The Boston Vegan Association, soliciting funding for I'm Vegan, and distributing a couple hundred or so copies of The Abolitionist Approach pamphlet. It was good to reach people that might not otherwise have heard of these projects.

In sum, though I don't exactly endorse the conference, I am glad I went. I learned a lot, got to know some really good people, deepened some friendships, had plenty of fun, and I feel like I contributed something valuable. I intend to go again next year so that I may continue to advocate for positive vegan advocacy based in the abolitionist approach to animal rights.

Thank you to the conference organizers for involving me.


I like to hear from you. Comment below or email me.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

Labels: abolition, animal rights, animal welfare, conferences, events, white privilege

I had brunch at a new Boston area restaurant today, Vej Naturals, and very much enjoyed my Southern Platter...

(Pan-fried seitan cutlet served with Home-style Gravy, scrambled tofu, grits, and greens)

...and the bites of French Toast my friend (the photographer, Laureen) was kind enough to share with me:


Just a brief reminder how, ahem, "deprived" vegans are.

Labels: tofu, vegan food, vegan restaurants

Hi, all. I have been pretty busy prepping for the conference, which I leave for on Wednesday. As mentioned previously, I'm on four panels--in addition to hosting a plenary session, a luncheon, a public speaking workshop, and a "rap session--so I have had some prep to do (I'm sure I'll be doing it right down to the wire). Plus, I've been very tied up with a few deadlines and a new project for my organization, the Boston Vegan Association, and those deadlines are not looking so realistic right now.

On top of all this, it's looking more and more like "I'm Vegan" will go forward this fall (only $2,575 more to go!), so my schedule is getting pretty scrambled (don't get me started on spraining my wrist, auditions that eat up half my day, being a reasonably available spouse, and participating in BVA events).

All of this is not to ask for your pity (believe it or not, I enjoy being this busy most of the time), but to explain why I've been pretty quiet here lately. I did take a little time today to quickly sketch out an outline and some notes for my next AR101 installment, Utilitarianism, but I doubt that I'll get the piece finished and posted before the conference.

I may post here while at the conference, but that seems unrealistic, too. If anything, I might tweet from there now and again, as I finally try to get the hang of micro-blogging. That link takes you to my personal Twitter page, FYI. I may set up an AAFL Twitter account at some point, if I get hooked on it. It would be nice to embed a micro-blog in the sidebar for those times when the big posts are few and far between.

So, stay tuned! Thanks for hanging in (especially through all the parentheticals).

I like to hear from you. Comment below or email me.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

Labels: meta

For those just tuning in, I'm raising funds for I'm Vegan, a project I first announced back in April. I'm Vegan is a series of short documentary profiles that aim for long-term impact as an online series normalizing veganism, and is intended to serve as a form of ongoing advocacy. It's personal, intimate and busts stereotypes.

The project is relatively low-budget and is being funded through a non-profit, which means the donations are tax deductible. I'm using The Point to gather pledges and reach my online goal of $22,000, and I've been keeping readers here posted in case they want to chip in any amount, no matter how small. The Point's recent upgrade from beta to 1.0 totally destroyed the nifty badges that they were using to promote our campaigns, so I don't have sexy graphic to update my fundraising, I'm sad to say.

In my previous update, I thanked an anonymous donor (a complete stranger) who mailed in a $9,000 check. I'm pleased to announce that, in the wake of that generous donation, another donor I know mailed in a $5,000 check. You can probably understand why donors want to remain anonymous. If you don't, in large part it has something to do with not receiving a zillion solicitations for donations every year.

My total funding goal for the project is $25,000, $3,000 of which was donated before I set up my campaign at The Point to raise the remaining $22,000. Between all the offline donations and the online pledges, I have raised a total of $22,150 so far. That means I only need to drum up $2,850 more in pledges at The Point in order to start production on I'm Vegan! We're getting close, which means I may actually be able to shoot this fall.

I know a few people out there have said you plan to pledge, so now's the time. In fact, only another $350 will put the total funding at exactly 90% of the budget. Remember, unlike traditional fundraisers, The Point works in such a way that your pledge is not cashed until enough other people pledge to reach the campaign goal, including the offline donations I am receiving. Once the tipping point is reached, your funds will be donated to the non-profit that will fund the project. Thanks to everyone who has committed funds since my last update (Like Will, and thanks for "finally" getting off the couch, Mindy; it was worth the wait!).

For more details on the project, or to donate now, please visit its campaign page. Thanks in advance for your support. Share this post (or the campaign page) far and wide!


I like to hear from you. Comment below or email me.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

Labels: activism, documentary, fundraising, imvegan, movies, veganism

I wrote a letter to the Washington Post in response to Wednesday's article, A Dish That Gets a Fuzzy Reception. That letter, which they called Those Rabbits: Friend or Food?, was published today, FYI.

From the article:

Chef Stefano Frigerio braces himself when he puts rabbit on the menu at Mio. It's only a matter of time before someone complains.

I like to hear from you. Comment below or email me.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

Labels: Letters

Property status

Humans have long dominated animals, including wild (or "free-living") animals, treating them as if they were our property since well before our laws formally defined them as such. Over time, our sense of entitlement to use animals as things for our benefit became firmly embedded in our culture. Indeed, it was animals' de facto property status that led to them being legally classified as property to begin with.

This deeply entrenched property status is the key obstacle to securing legal rights for nonhuman animals because, as long as humans perceive nonhumans to be property, we will be unable to abolish their legal property status. As mentioned in my previous post, property cannot possess legal rights, only persons can.

Persons are the humans, corporations, and other institutions endowed with rights by law, including the right to own and use property as a means to some recognized end. For instance, a person's bicycle is a means for her to travel from one place to another. That bicycle belongs to her, and she may use or not use it as she sees fit. Because the bicycle is an inanimate object, it is not sentient, and therefore it has no interests for her to take into consideration.

Unlike bicycles and all other inanimate objects, sentient animals do have interests that merit consideration, and this presents us with our problem: Because they are legally classified as property that humans may use as a means to any recognized end, just like inanimate objects such as bicycles, they are prevented from possessing any legal rights that would protect their interests.

Legal welfarism

In lieu of legal rights, numerous welfare laws and anticruelty statutes have been enacted over the past 200 years or so, with the intent of protecting at least one very important animal interest that humans have recognized as significant enough to be given our consideration: that of not being made to suffer. To avoid causing animals "unnecessary" suffering in the course of our using them as means to our ends, welfare laws seek to ensure that persons treat animals "humanely." "Necessity" is evaluated by balancing human interests against the interests of animals in a given scenario.

Gary L. Francione identifies the futility of this balancing act in Animals, Property, and the Law:

...although the law prohibits the infliction of "unnecessary" pain and suffering on animals and requires that they be treated "humanely," these terms are interpreted in light of the legal status of animals as property, the importance of property in our culture, and the general tendency of legal doctrine to protect and to maximize the value of property. (p. 4)

In other words, as long as animals are regarded as the property of humans, their interests will never count for as much as legally protected human interests, and so the scale will be rigged in favor of humans before the balancing has even begun. Despite the existence of myriad animal welfare laws and cruelty statutes intended to protect animals from suffering, then, animals' interests remain more or less unprotected. Without legal rights, even an animal's most significant interests cannot be protected from being traded away in favor of any trivial human interest so long as that human interest is in some recognized end (see Legal welfarism illustrated, below, for an example).

Francione calls this entire framework "legal welfarism." Unlike rights theory, which regards every animal as an end, legal welfarism regards nonhuman animals solely as a means to some end ("food animals," "lab animals," "game animals," "fur animals," "companion animals," "animal actors," etc.). Presuming from the outset that animals are property for us to use, legal welfarism asks only that we determine whether or not an animal is being treated "humanely" in the course of being exploited--and provides them with only that level of protection that facilitates humans using them as a means to their recognized ends, e.g., advancing scientific knowledge, producing food, and so on. As Francione suggests, "The only activities that remain to be prohibited by such statutes are those where no socially recognized benefit can be traced to the animal killing or suffering." (p. 129)

Legal welfarism illustrated

To illustrate legal welfarism in effect, let's examine a couple of hypothetical scenarios involving the use of a cow. Bear in mind throughout that the cow has an interest in not being used as property precisely to avoid being the victim in either of these hypothical scenarios in the first place.

Now, to determine whether or not an activity would be prohibited by an anticruelty statute, we must break the question of "necessary" suffering into two parts (See Figure 1, below). Part 1 asks whether the end is recognized, i.e., whether or not using the cow provides some recognized human benefit. If the end is, say, "satisfying a teenager's sadistic interests," the answer for Scenario 1 is "No." The law does not recognize the end of satisfying one's sadistic intersts as providing some human benefit--quite the contrary. Regardless of the teenager's exact plans for the cow, any suffering he causes the cow in the end of satisfying his sadistic interests will be considered "unnecessary," and is thus prohibited.

Case closed. On to Scenario 2.

If the end in question is "using a cow for the purpose of food, clothing (or some other recognized end)," then the answer to Part 1 under the legal welfarism paradigm would be "Yes." While the cow has the exact same interest in not suffering as in Scenario 1, the law recognizes that producing food and clothing provides a human benefit, and so it is determined that this activity or end is "necessary." The cow's interest is effectively trumped, and so we move on to Part 2.

Part 2 asks whether the means the cow's owner employs to the end of using a cow to produce food or clothing is consistent with that end. If the cow's owner lets her starve due to neglect, then the owner will have caused "unnecessary" suffering. Neglect is therefore prohibited. Starving one's cow is not consistent with the end of using that cow to produce food or clothing. It's a pointless "waste."

On the other hand, if a cow experiences suffering in the course of being used as a means to the end of producing food and clothing for human benefit, that suffering is considered "necessary" so long as the suffering is the result of a standard industry practice. Of course, the law also recognizes as "necessary" the death of the cow as a means to achieving the recognized end of feeding and clothing humans, despite the cow's demonstrable interest in staying alive.

The law will rule as "unnecessary" only that suffering which does not conflict with the animal owner's ability to exploit an animal efficiently. Generally, however, the law will defer to property owners when determining whether or not a certain activity is necessary.

It's generally assumed under the legal welfarism paradigm that a property owner wouldn't intentionally devalue his property by causing that property "unnecessary" suffering. Therefore, whatever suffering the owner does incur must be "necessary" to increase the value of the property or maximize the benefits of that use for humans.

What about "wild" animals?

Though many nonhuman animals are born free in nature, as non-persons they still do not have a legal right not to be property. Though they may not technically be property, they are still regarded as if they are property (e.g., as mere things, or potential property), and our laws allow humans to "convert" certain wild animals into their personal property through the act of hunting and capturing or killing those animals.

All animals' interests may be traded away in favor of human interests as long as they are not protected by legal rights. And, even though some animals aren't technically personal property, their property status always tips the scale in favor of human interests, as if they were in fact property.

Conclusion

As long as animals are regarded as property, the balancing of animal and human interests is futile. The only way to balance the scales--to honestly give the like interests of humans and nonhumans equal consideration--is to give animals legal rights that protect their interests, too. Then we'll be on a level playing field. But if we ever want to see this happen, we must first abolish their property status--starting with the very perception that it is acceptable to use animals as if they were property.

Next post: Rights Theory v. Utilitarianism

Previous post: Animal Rights


I like to hear from you. Comment below or email me.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

Labels: abolition, animal rights, AR101, property, property status, theory

I wanted to update everyone on the fundraising progress for I'm Vegan, the video project I first announced back in April. My total funding goal for the project is $25,000, $3,000 of which I received at the beginning of the year as a private donation. I set up a campaign to raise the remaining $22,000 at The Point, and proceeded to raise nearly $4,000 from 30 people in 2 months. Pledges ranged from $10 to $1,000. Thanks to everyone who has committed funds so far!

Special thanks have to go out now to an anonymous donor that mailed in a $9,000 check, which was basically intended to halve the amount of money still needed to reach the total funding goal. That is a huge push and a wonderful vote of confidence! It also means I only need $9,125 more in pledges at The Point in order to start production on I'm Vegan. The $9,000 takes the campaign at The Point from 18% complete to 58%, so my next milestone is 60%. I only need $325 to get to that number, so please pledge today if you can.

For those that missed the original post and don't feel like clicking through the above link, I'm Vegan is a series of short documentary profiles that aim for long-term impact as an online series normalizing veganism, and thus it is an ongoing form of advocacy. It's personal, intimate and busts stereotypes. What's more, the project is relatively low-budget and is being funded through a non-profit, which means the donations are tax deductible.

The great thing is, unlike traditional fundraisers, The Point works in such a way that no one parts with their hard-earned cash until enough people pledge funds to reach the campaign goal of $22,000 (once complete funding is received, it will be donated to the non-profit that is sponsoring the project with needed equipment and other expenses).

For more details on the project, or to donate now, please visit its campaign page at The Point. Thanks in advance for your support. Share this post (or the campaign page) far and wide!


I like to hear from you. Comment below or email me.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

Labels: activism, documentary, fundraising, imvegan, movies, veganism

Introduction

As with the term "rights," there is a great deal of confusion about the term "animal rights." Much of this confusion has been caused not just by the media and the industries that exploit nonhuman animals, but also by activists and animal advocacy groups using the term to loosely describe any actions purported to improve the conditions of animals used by humans. In other words, rather than promoting the moral or legal rights of animals, some so-called "animal rights activists" focus on regulating animal welfare--how animals are treated.

Further confusing the issue, some animal rights activists seek legal rights for only a select category of sentient nonhuman animals (such as great apes), based on characteristics such as higher-order cognitive abilities. The rights theory I put forth here--laid out in far greater detail in Gary L. Francione's highly recommended Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog?--holds that any sentient being has at least one basic moral right simply by virtue of that being's sentience: The right not be treated merely as a means to another's end.

Sentience

To be sentient is to be conscious or self-aware, capable of perception or feeling. Sentient humans and nonhumans feel sensations of pain, pleasure and so on. When a being is sentient, s/he will naturally have interests. For instance, the capacity for sentient beings to feel pain provides them with a clear interest in not feeling pain.

In recognition of this particular interest, we generally consider it unacceptable to inflic