General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
Volenta wrote:@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.
Wow, he's worse than I thought he was, and I thought he was pretty bad. It's not a surprise, though.
"Logic and rationality", sure... so is everybody's position, from the Pope to Tom Cruise. Or so they think.
Deontologists have to spend a lot of their energy claiming to be logical and rational, instead of just demonstrating it. That's not in itself a condemnation, but it's interesting to note.
Volenta wrote:
Although he's right on many things, when it comes to complex moral situations, his logic fails.
What is he right on? You mean like, accidentally right?
brimstoneSalad wrote:What is he right on? You mean like, accidentally right?
I thought a bit about that after posting it, and that's indeed when it comes down to. The arguments he's right on are the arguments that could have been made along the same lines within consequentialism. Things like the necessity/relevance of using animals in relation with the suffering.
Also where I think he's right on is about that animals care about their life and that killing is immoral (the killing in someones sleep problem). He states that this is different from the view of John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer, although I haven't read it directly from them saying that.
Volenta wrote:
Also where I think he's right on is about that animals care about their life and that killing is immoral (the killing in someones sleep problem). He states that this is different from the view of John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer, although I haven't read it directly from them saying that.
Well, it's relatively easy to poke holes in Utilitarianism, but that isn't one of the holes that you can even poke. He doesn't seem to even understand his largest opposition well enough to attack it effectively (which should have been easy if he had bothered).
But Consequentialism does not equal utilitarianism. I doubt he understands that either.
Just as religion is a barrier for some people going vegan, for many others, it's precisely what provides the basis for their moral concern regarding animals, leading them to become vegan, whether that's the notion of universal love and care of the vulnerable as taught by Jesus; the awareness of the interdependence of all things, as taught by Buddhism; the belief in the one Self that exists in all beings as taught in Hinduism; the notion of the Tao that pervades all beings, as taught in Taoism; or the value of ahimsa as taught in Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism. So to characterise the religious impulse as being universally antithetical to animal ethics is just plain wrong.
<<You may not like my bringing together of atheism and veganism, and while not directly related, they are my two passions and I feel discussing them is helpful.>> I might have a passion for Bavarian folk dancing, but that's no reason to try to draw a non-existent connection between that and the Abolitionist Approach and mix them up together on a Facebook page in a way that sends the message that there is a connection.
Please someone help me out, I thought that Buddhism isn't a religion more as a way of life ?
francione has said some priceless things like saying atheism is a kind of faith and using deepak chopra type quantum physics arguments for which he has no background to make bizarree inferences. http://teleperra.pbworks.com/w/page/242 ... 0francione
garrethdsouza wrote:francione has said some priceless things like saying atheism is a kind of faith and using deepak chopra type quantum physics arguments for which he has no background to make bizarree inferences. http://teleperra.pbworks.com/w/page/242 ... 0francione
Yikes. I kind of want to respond to it, but I don't respect Francione enough to really address him or try to talk to him.
I must confess I am a fan of Francione, although when it comes to religion and a few other issues I just wish he'd put a sock in it.
I didn't know what the deontological position was before reading posts on this forum, so I'm glad I did that. However, I've never known Francione to say X is wrong simply because it is. He's always explained in what way whatever form of animal exploitation is wrong in terms of the harm it does to the animals. In that sense I always took him for a consequentialist, which is more my style. Now I find I don't know quite what to make of him.
I think that if he and someone like, say, Dillahunty were to have two debates, one on religion, the other on veganism, Dillahunty would dominate the first, while Francione would own the second. They'd both make each other look stupid. Both of them are so brilliant but so ignorant and dumb in their respective ways.
