Philosophical Vegan Forum

brimstoneSalad wrote: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"?

I don't know. According to Google Translate, "the heavens fall" translates (English --> French) to "les cieux tombent". According to Google Translate, "a bas le ciel" translates (French --> English) to "down the sky".

brimstoneSalad wrote:

Lightningman_42 wrote: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.

Are you sure? I haven't seen him say something like this publicly. I wouldn't be surprised if he really does believe this, but it seems like the kind of thing that he would try to hide. Doesn't he occasionally talk about how veganism can be for everyone? That religious doctrines provide motivation for some theists to go vegan, but atheists can be vegan too?

brimstoneSalad wrote: Interestingly, "a bas le ciel"... my French is rusty, doesn't that mean "the heavens fall"?

I know a guy who speaks french, want me to ask him to be sure? We all know Google Translate isn't always 100% accurate.

RedAppleGP wrote:

brimstoneSalad wrote: Interestingly, "a bas le ciel"... my French is rusty, doesn't that mean "the heavens fall"?

I know a guy who speaks french, want me to ask him to be sure? We all know Google Translate isn't always 100% accurate.

You're right about the literal translation, but practically speaking it means something more along the lines of "tear down the heavens" . Start a revolution. Kill the old gods, etc.

Lightningman_42 wrote:Are you sure? I haven't seen him say something like this publicly. I wouldn't be surprised if he really does believe this, but it seems like the kind of thing that he would try to hide. Doesn't he occasionally talk about how veganism can be for everyone? That religious doctrines provide motivation for some theists to go vegan, but atheists can be vegan too?

You know, ABLC said something like this in a video about Francione. When I read the book I did notice Francione talks a lot about religion, and I've seen him criticizing the new Atheists on his FB page. He also speaks at conferences on Jainism, and I've wondered more if he's Jain, given his use of the language in his book.

He probably wouldn't be that vocal about any religious beliefs he has, although he has sort of advocated for Jainism on his blog:

" I accept the Jain Way of Life–the vegan version, of course! I encourage you all to explore this spiritual tradition. There is a great site that provides (for free) the full text of a large number of books in English (and other languages)."http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-religion-of-non-violence/#.WIzYqbGZNE4

In short, I don't have a clue what his religion is, but it's fair to say he's probably not an atheist if he's telling people Jainism is a great spiritual tradition and they should look into it.

Here's the post where TheVeganAtheist talks about his conversation:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=309&p=3022&hilit=francione#p3022

This infamous thread followed shortly thereafter:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=785

ModVegan wrote:

RedAppleGP wrote:

brimstoneSalad wrote: Interestingly, "a bas le ciel"... my French is rusty, doesn't that mean "the heavens fall"?

I know a guy who speaks french, want me to ask him to be sure? We all know Google Translate isn't always 100% accurate.

You're right about the literal translation, but practically speaking it means something more along the lines of "tear down the heavens" . Start a revolution. Kill the old gods, etc.

If he is actually a deontologist rather than a consequentialist, that may be something that can't be fixed. I feel like that may be the case, and that he only presents consequential arguments when it suits him (like Francione) but his true reasons are dogmatic.

This doesn't give me much hope:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOyn2tdIHAM
Aside from the fact of misrepresenting UV based on old stuff that she doesn't really agree with anymore (and has indicated in later videos), he seems to be promoting a very dogmatic view.
I really wish he would be a good voice for veganism, he is at least very prolific, but I don't think he's open to changing his mindset on these matters.

With a consequentialist, at least you can present arguments discussing the consequences of things and have a more open analysis of harm vs. benefit. There's not usually much talking to a deontologist unless you can inspire a serious paradigm shift.

brimstoneSalad wrote: This doesn't give me much hope:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOyn2tdIHAM
Aside from the fact of misrepresenting UV based on old stuff that she doesn't really agree with anymore (and has indicated in later videos), he seems to be promoting a very dogmatic view.
I really wish he would be a good voice for veganism, he is at least very prolific, but I don't think he's open to changing his mindset on these matters.

With a consequentialist, at least you can present arguments discussing the consequences of things and have a more open analysis of harm vs. benefit. There's not usually much talking to a deontologist unless you can inspire a serious paradigm shift.

I'm inclined to agree with ABLC that Francione has kind of reached the end of his contribution to the movement. Not to make it sound like 70 is too old be contributing in a valuable way (I think Singer, by contrast, is still producing a great deal - probably because he seems to have a much easier time getting along with people)

ModVegan wrote: I'm inclined to agree with ABLC that Francione has kind of reached the end of his contribution to the movement. Not to make it sound like 70 is too old be contributing in a valuable way (I think Singer, by contrast, is still producing a great deal - probably because he seems to have a much easier time getting along with people)

One can only hope. I think Francione has had a very negative impact of late, and the more he contributes, the more he harms the movement from here on out. Although at least he's non-violent, which is more than I can say for some extremists.

About Singer: part of it may be personality (another concern I have with ABLC, he seems to jump at cutting people off due to perceived slights, although UV isn't much better in that regard given her disinclination for collaboration), but I think consequentialism is naturally more conducive to cooperation, because you can see it as having good outcomes despite your personal feelings, and because you're always open to evidence (of more harm, or of more good) since your view is one of tipping scales rather than absolute rules.

I generally look to Francione for good theory, but also feel like he has his head in the clouds, much like most omnivores have their heads in the sand. Francione is so far ahead of our day, he just can't comprehend any kind of utilitarian approach to moving a society out of animal exploitation. #veganfundamentalism.. Also, if modvegan is right, I worry that Francione has built a cognitive bias against research that shows

A) "baby steps" are effective means to move people away from exploiting animals and thus a significant tool for activism
B) SICs can be effective esp if vegans get more involved (I'm not entirely convinced on this one, but open)

ABLC seems to me like the kind of person who feels/would feel inspired by Anascombe's rejection of both utilitarianism and deontology in her 'Modern Moral Philosophy'.
I remember him saying that he's a nihilist on multiple occasions, which i imagine means nothing more to him than the rejection of a supernatural moral legislator. So I doubt he's religious, though i may be wrong.
He does seem to adhere to some form of virtue ethics, with some added inconsistent consequentialist arguments when they happen to support his views. Though he seems more preoccupied with how certain actions reflect on his character and moral fiber.