@brimstoneSalad
I think you could indeed say he's a deontologist, and that does create some serious weaknesses in his arguments sometimes. In his post he says:
Gary Francione wrote:the arguments for animal rights that I have developed over the past 30 years, which are very different from the positions developed by Peter Singer and Tom Regan, rest on logic and rationality. Period. Anyone who claims differently either does not know my work or is deliberately misrepresenting it.
Although he's right on many things, when it comes to complex moral situations, his logic fails.
***
I've seem him criticizing the 'new atheists' before (don't like that term really, it's really just atheism + anti-theism in modern the age), but I'm not really impressed. I can tell he didn't do much research on it. I have some problems with some parts of his posts.
Gary Francione wrote:Third, speciesism, whether in the form of a religious doctrine or a secular doctrine, promotes speciesism. The notion that religion has a corner on the speciesism market is just plain wrong. Have religions been used to support speciesism? Yes. Have secular institutions, such as the humanist paradigm of the Enlightenment been used to support speciesism? Yes. Is mainstream science speciesist? Of course it is. None of these institutions are inherently speciesist (or racist or sexist or homophobic). But these institutions are all dominated and shaped by people who are speciesist (and sexist, racist, and homophobic).
Speciesism is innate in many religions in the same way that women are viewed inferior and homosexuality is not accepted. It's so obvious from reading the text from the holy books. Arguing that it doesn't is
not being honest. It is exactly the reason why many religious people are so conservative and want to keep hold to certain anti-progressive ideas in society.
Although it is true that most secular institutions are (still) 'promoting' speciesism, doesn't take away that they the moral philosophy that is driving animal ethics in the right direction is secular. There is no way these ideas are put forward by theologians basing it on the bible. Just look at how William Lane Craig and John Lennox think about Peter Singer. You can say that these are just individuals rejecting animal abolition, but those thoughts are exactly what you would expect from people that are taking the bible seriously.
And attacking science for being speciesist is just stupid. Scientific research being conducted that supports speciesism (like animal experimentation) is a purely political and societal decision. What science itself says about the position of animals and humans in the animal kingdom is the opposite of speciesim. Science is necessary for serious moral reasoning, and is exactly what leads to the rejection of anthropocentrism and speciesim. The understanding of scientific facts about animals is why I am vegan...
He kind of corrects himself by saying that it's the people that shape the institutions and it's not really innate, but that is only true for secular and scientific institutions. Speciesism in religion
is innate.
Later in the article he says that many Christians worked on the abolition of slavery. At the same time the bible is used to justify their actions for centuries. It's really was secular reasoning—which could well be performed by moderate Christians—that did the job. If it were for the bible, it would never have happened.
P.S. He even shortens Christopher into Chris (Christopher would hit him for that
).
***
On the 'new atheists' I have different feelings, because there are more people representing it and holding different views. On the existence of God I of course agree, although I'm not always sure whether it is always argued very well (I especially find Christopher Hitchens to be weak sometimes at this point).
I agree with most of their criticism of religion. But I'm not sure that every point they make is factually true, especially Harris and Hitchens on the middle east (that
Francione also pointed out). I just don't know enough about the conflict to know whether they are right (and don't really bother to study it), although I think it's undeniable that there is religious influence as well. Of course I do agree that the position of women in this area is horrible. And I also agree with other issues as well, like the damage being done by the catholic church.
Edit: I have to point out that the middle east situation is probably one of the few situations that I doubt the truth of, so I think the suggestion of Francione that the problems of the world aren't caused by religion is wrong; some are, some aren't, and that's the 'new atheists' position as well.
I absolutely share their goal to make people more rational and critical to push society in the right direction. It's true that society has to face many important problems (like climate change) and that when we still are arguing about issues—that are really non-issues—like stem-cell research, that's a problem.
I especially love the work of Dawkins on evolution; Harris on free will, morality (which I also view as extremely important) and spirituality; and Krauss on cosmology.