Volume XII · The Essentials of Animal Ethics · chapter 15
Debates on Activism Strategies
Before you read study layer, not part of the original text
The table summarizes strategic debates in activism: veganism or reduction, reform or abolition, indirect or direct arguments, a broad focus or a focus on animals, technology or social change, the general population or influential people, behavior or attitude, controversial actions, social or institutional change.
People who defend animals argue a lot about the best way to help. The chapter shows the main arguments on each side, without saying that only one is right.
Coaches on the same team can disagree about tactics and still want the same result: winning.
- P1 There are many debates about how effective activist strategies are.
- P2 In each one, there are reasonable arguments on both sides.
- P3 Often the question is how much to focus on each strategy, not which one to use exclusively.
- C So we need to evaluate strategies carefully, and perhaps spread people across several of them.
The chapter’s central argument in logical form. If the premises are true, the conclusion follows. To disagree, you have to show which premise is false.
They say “There is only one right way to be an activist.”
Answer The table shows reasonable arguments on both sides of each debate. It may be better to have different people working on different strategies.
More objections and answers in Debunking objections.
Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume XII, p. 52 of the PDF edition · English translation
Another topic whose discussion has grown considerably in recent years is the efficiency of different kinds of strategies in animal advocacy62. The following table illustrates some debates about the degree of efficiency of different activism strategies. Important: this debate is not necessarily about “this strategy or that one?” It may be about how much to focus on one or the other. A further discussion is whether it would be better for everyone to focus on certain strategies (and whether or not always to focus on the same one), or to have different people focusing on different strategies, and to compensate according to how little a strategy has been tried.
| Some debates on various activism strategies | ||
|---|---|---|
| What is at issue | Main argument of the conflicting positions | |
| Should we focus on advocating veganism or reduced consumption? (VIII, ch. 9). | For a focus on reduction. It may be easier to get many more people to reduce their consumption than to accept becoming vegan. Many more people doing less may have a better impact for animals than a few people doing a lot. | For a focus on veganism. Advocating reduction may give the impression that animal exploitation is acceptable. Even if fewer people adopt veganism than reduction, the total impact may be better for animals if these people are more engaged in activism. |
| Should we advocate the reform of animal exploitation so that animals suffer less, or only its abolition? (VIII, ch. 10,11) | For reform. Regulating animal exploitation may reduce the suffering of exploited animals and may help to abolish it gradually, since it may make the public increasingly concerned about what happens to animals. | Against reform. Since animals are items of property, laws requiring that they suffer less will hardly have any effect if they reduce profits. The public may mistakenly think that the animals are suffering less, and this may increase demand and thus increase the number of animals exploited |
| In activism against the consumption of animals, should we focus on the harm to animals, or should we also talk about environmental impacts and health risks (that is, indirect arguments)? (VIII, ch. 4). | For indirect arguments. For the animals, the motive does not matter; what matters is that people stop exploiting them. Moreover, many people defend animal exploitation not because they believe it is just, but because they like the taste of animal-based food. Thus, if they give up consuming animals, for whatever reason, it will be easier for them later to take a stand against animal exploitation. | Against indirect arguments. Different motives have different consequences for animals. Indirect arguments may reinforce the idea that the harm to animals is not enough to make animal exploitation unjust. Moreover, appealing to anthropocentric and environmentalist arguments may reinforce these views and make it harder for people to care about other, even greater harms to animals (as in the case of animals in the wild and s-risks63). |
| When talking about sentient beings, should we talk only about nonhumans, or about human problems as well? (VIII, ch., 4,6,8) | For a broad focus. Addressing human problems may lead other social movements to be more accepting of the animal advocacy movement, as they come to see that there are common goals (consideration for all sentient beings). | For a focus on animals. The vast majority of people already focus on human problems and neglect the situation of animals. That is why there are reasons to emphasize the situation of animals, since the resources for the animal cause are much more limited and it is much more neglected. |
| Focus on social change or technological change? (VIII, ch. 7, 12, IX, ch. 9). | For technological change. Certain technologies may make the use of animals obsolete (for example, cultivated meat), and this may benefit animals even if people do not consider them. | For social change. What will determine whether technology is used to cause suffering or to prevent it are the values people hold. |
| Focus on the general population or on people with influence and power? | For a focus on people with influence and power. A smaller number of such people may have a greater impact than a majority. | For a focus on the general population. Most changes will need the support of a large number of people (whether social or institutional changes). |
| Focus on changes in behavior or in attitude? | For behavioral change. Practical changes are more engaging. They can also break down resistance to changes in attitude. | For attitude change. It is hard for people to change their behavior toward animals if they do not change what they think about them. |
| How confrontational/ accommodating should the approach be? | For confrontational action. Confrontational action draws attention to the problem. | Against confrontational action. Confrontational action may generate rejection. |
| Focus on social changes or on institutional changes? | For a focus on institutional changes. Most social movements that have grown (such as environmentalism, for example) did so by pursuing institutional changes. Moreover, for an institutional change to take effect, fewer people need to be convinced than for a social change to take effect. Finally, focusing on institutional changes emphasizes that this is not a matter of “personal choice,” but that there should be laws requiring everyone to respect animals. | For a focus on social changes. Since animals are property under the law, it is hard to achieve an institutional change that actually protects them. What would have to be done is to remove them from the category of items of property. But for this to happen, many people need to call for such a change. Thus, social change is necessary for institutional change. Moreover, for institutional changes to actually be complied with, a change is needed in the way people regard animals. |
Practice
Study layer. The answers are based on the chapter’s text.
According to the table, what is the main argument against reforms?
Is the debate between strategies necessarily "this one or that one"?
Food for thought
In which of these debates do you have a position? What is the best argument on the opposing side?
Author’s notes 2
Sources cited in this text 2
The full list for the volume is in the Volume XII references.
- GREIG, K. Effects of farmed animal advocacy messaging on attitudes towards policies and decisions affecting wild animal suffering. Animal Charity Evaluators, 05 abr. 2017.
- REESE, J. Summary of Evidence for Foundational Questions in Effective Animal Advocacy. Sentience Institute, 24 dez. 2019.
Go deeper on each point
The chapters the author points to in the tables above.
- Vol. VIII Focusing on Veganism versus Focusing on Reducing Consumption
- Vol. VIII Why the Term Welfarism Is Highly Ambiguous
- Vol. VIII The Debate on Regulating Animal Exploitation
- Vol. VIII The Use of Anthropocentric and Environmentalist Arguments in the Animal Cause
- Vol. VIII Shifting the Focus in Debates: Why Is Speciesism Rarely Discussed?
- Vol. VIII Normative Objections Disguised as Strategic Objections
- Vol. VIII Moral Beliefs, Motivation to Act, and the Role of Ethical Reflection
- Vol. VIII The Debate on Cultivated Meat
Recommended texts
Keep exploring The Essentials of Animal Ethics.
Evaluating Different Strategies
To evaluate strategies, we can use metacriteria: tackling causes, preventing backsliding, how much it has…
Conclusion
The volume closes the collection with an overview of the main questions in animal ethics, offering an…
Introduction
Volume XII is a schematic guide to the other 11 volumes: each debate appears in tables of attempted…