We're all fake vegans. Except Francione. According to Francione.

[ModVegan]

I just finished doing a book review of Gary Francione's 2016 "Abolitionist Approach" book, and so I thought I'd actually begun to have some respect for the guy, as I thought he made some good points in the book.

Then this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn4qhLOKyrM

I know Gary Francione is preachy and holier than thou, but his latest video drove me insane. It's only a couple of minutes long, but in it he argues that:
1) real vegans don't eat anything fried in oil that has been used for frying chicken, because it might contain traces of chicken fat
2) dumpster diving is immoral even if nobody sees you do it. Because, would you eat a human arm?

I'd honestly love to debate him on this, but since he's much too busy harassing people in vegan t-shirts who eat fries, I'll have to settle for you guys

I just think this is ridiculous. Maybe because I'm less emotional than Francione, but I'd love to hear your thoughts. I contend that:
1) eating fries that get touched by oil that has touched chicken flesh might be gross (and clearly produces a disgust response in Francione), but it is not immoral. Eating those fries in no way contributes to the exploitation, use, or abuse of animals, so it's up to the individual whether it grosses them out or not.
2) I'm tempted to make a video about why vegans can eat roadkill if they want. Seriously, if you remove animal products from a dumpster and eat them, I'd assume that you're a) pretty desperate, and b) have a strong stomach. I suppose there is some argument that if you serve these foods to your friends and acquaintances you're promoting meat consumption (and food borne illness).

But I found Francione's argument about the "human arm" totally ridiculous, tbh. If you're starving and willing to eat human flesh, who cares? (as long as you aren't murdering people, duh). If you aren't starving and are willing to eat human body parts - that's kind of weird, but I don't consider it immoral. Just gross. And probably a good excuse for the police to monitor your behaviour a little more closely.

Thoughts?

[miniboes]

You're absolutely right; Francione has for a long time been the symbol of everything this forum strives not to be (aside from vegan).

[ModVegan]

You're absolutely right; Francione has for a long time been the symbol of everything this forum strives not to be (aside from vegan).

Haha, yeah. I can't say he's never said anything good, but statements like these do a huge disservice to veganism, imho. I'll be doing a video on this for sure!

[brimstoneSalad]

Francione is insane. He appeals to consequentialist arguments sometimes in order to seem more rational, but he doesn't believe in any of them. He's a deontologist through and through, and when you beat him in argument he'll just appeal to his dogma.

One of the most notorious threads on the forum:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=785
I don't know if/how much you've read.

If I recall correctly, TheVeganAtheist had a short argument with Francione too. He used to be a fan of Francione.

I think you can see more crazy here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ1qFdR1cHA
Any time Friedrich makes a rational point with a good argument, Francione dismisses it without making any real argument; appealing to emotion or dogma instead.

[ModVegan]

Francione is insane. He appeals to consequentialist arguments sometimes in order to seem more rational, but he doesn't believe in any of them. He's a deontologist through and through, and when you beat him in argument he'll just appeal to his dogma.

Francione's latest book makes his deontological position very evident.

What bothers me is that he states repeatedly he believes all animal use is wrong.

But this video is not about exploitation, it's about impurity. And I find that annoying. He should have entitled it "even if it doesn't affect animals in any manner whatsoever, it grosses me out to eat fries made in a frier that touches chicken". He has a disgust response that he can't justify, even on the basis of his own deontological ethic. He compares eating fries or food cooked on a surface used to cook meat with ordering spaghetti with cheese. There is zero symmetry between those examples, in my view.

[brimstoneSalad]

But this video is not about exploitation, it's about impurity. And I find that annoying. He should have entitled it "even if it doesn't affect animals in any manner whatsoever, it grosses me out to eat fries made in a frier that touches chicken". He has a disgust response that he can't justify, even on the basis of his own deontological ethic.

I think you might be giving deontology too much credit here for being compromising and reasonable.
In his mind, it's exploitation if you knowingly and intentionally consume a single molecule of meat. You have no right to consume that animal's body, or any residue from it.

Of course, that's nonsense. It should be about harm, but Francione doesn't care about consequence, he cares about absolutist dogma.

I think he's consistent, he's just far more insane than you imagined.

[ModVegan]

I think he's consistent, he's just far more insane than you imagined.

Fair enough. I guess I honestly can't comprehend an ethical framework devoid of any consideration of consequences. It seriously fries my circuitry.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think he's consistent, he's just far more insane than you imagined.

Fair enough. I guess I honestly can't comprehend an ethical framework devoid of any consideration of consequences. It seriously fries my circuitry.

The slogan on deontology is basically, "let justice be done, though the world perish".
Or "let justice be done though the heavens fall".

It's very alien, but applies to some degree to anybody more concerned with principle than consequence. Most people just don't take it as far (or as consistently) as Francione does.

[Lightningman_42]

I think he's consistent, he's just far more insane than you imagined.

Fair enough. I guess I honestly can't comprehend an ethical framework devoid of any consideration of consequences. It seriously fries my circuitry.

Yeah, I feel the same way. I imagine Francione's "circuitry" is wired exactly opposite of yours and mine (unable to understand the notion of a consequentialist moral framework being valid).

The slogan on deontology is basically, "let justice be done, though the world perish".
Or "let justice be done though the heavens fall".

It's very alien, but applies to some degree to anybody more concerned with principle than consequence. Most people just don't take it as far (or as consistently) as Francione does.

Francione's fanaticism with following principle regardless of consequence is ironically a bad thing for animals. He does animals a disservice by turning people away from veganism by portraying it as dogmatic. For example, he argues that dumpster diving for meat is wrong despite the lack of any resultant harm to animals. He pushes the idea of "no pet ownership ever, no matter how good the welfare of the pets is" as a vital component of the vegan movement, but he can't substantiate this stance, and it turns people away from veganism.

Makes me wonder how much he actually cares for animals. He's selfishly determined to be in accordance with his own principles, even if this hurts animals.

[brimstoneSalad]

He pushes the idea of "no pet ownership ever, no matter how good the welfare of the pets is" as a vital component of the vegan movement, but he can't substantiate this stance, and it turns people away from veganism.

It's weird to see ABLC criticizing Francione when he basically seems to believe the same things about principles over consequence and dogmatic rejection of entire categories of action (like the pet thing).
Interestingly, "a bas le ciel"... my French is rusty, doesn't that mean "the heavens fall"?

Makes me wonder how much he actually cares for animals. He's selfishly determined to be in accordance with his own principles, even if this hurts animals.

Right, I think he cares more for his own ego and being "right" (or thinking he is and never admitting he's wrong). However, he is a strong proponent of belief in the supernatural/god as a fundamental requirement to have ethics so maybe he believes if you follow these rules then god will make sure good always triumphs, but if you violate those principles the supernatural forces he believes in will sabotage your victory as part of the cosmic narrative.