A Meaningful Life

[mcin...@gmail.com]

Has everyone seen this essay?

http://www.veganoutreach.org/advocacy/meaningfullife.html

Matt Ball makes some interesting points about advocacy relative to our
discussions about Singer and Francione.

[Sara]

From "A Meaningful Life":

"Of course, if these billions of animals lived happy, healthy lives
and had quick, painless deaths, then our concern for suffering would
lead us elsewhere. "

To Matt Ball of VO (and Singer), death is not quite the same as
suffering. Francione, on the other hand, is interested in reducing
suffering _and_ preserving life. Well, that comparison is a little
unfair. I'm sure if pushed, Matt Ball would also insist that he is
interested in preserving life-- it's just a matter of efficiently
organizing the limited amount of time available. To him, the most
efficient method of animal activism is to target what it seems like
most of America could agree is excessive, ie factory farming. To
Francione, it's more effective to use your limited time here on earth
to work towards exactly what you want rather than settling for what
seems like an easy target.

A little like being in the voting booth and voting either for the
candidate you really want to win or voting for the candidate in your
party who has the most funds just because you think they're more
likely to win.

--Sara

[mcin...@gmail.com]

I think your comparison with voting is apt. Ball encourages us to
open are hearts and minds because by doing so we'll inspire others to
have open hearts and minds and create the possibility of focusing what
is "fundamentally important." He points out that VO wants to pursue
avenues that will lead to the greatest amount of suffering, which I
think unquestionably would be an end of the commodification of
animals, but stops short of saying that himself in favor of doing what
will have the greatest impact on the people they are reaching out to.
While I understand the motivation there, I think it misses the point
and will go so far as to say it almost softens the message to make it
more palatable. Politicians do this to reach a winder audience to at
the cost of being honest.

If what is fundamentally important is alleviating suffering, I am
convinced by Francione and Torres' arguments that this can only be
done if we look at animals as more than just a means to an end and
address the very institutions that perpetuate this suffering. Death,
as it exits within the animals-as-commodities structure seems to be to
be synonymous with suffering.

On Jan 5, 9:14 am, Sara <sams...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From "A Meaningful Life":
>
> "Of course, if these billions of animals lived happy, healthy lives
> and had quick, painless deaths, then our concern for suffering would
> lead us elsewhere. "
>
> To Matt Ball of VO (and Singer), death is not quite the same as
> suffering. Francione, on the other hand, is interested in reducing
> suffering _and_ preserving life. Well, that comparison is a little
> unfair. I'm sure if pushed, Matt Ball would also insist that he is
> interested in preserving life-- it's just a matter of efficiently
> organizing the limited amount of time available. To him, the most
> efficient method of animal activism is to target what it seems like
> most of America could agree is excessive, ie factory farming. To
> Francione, it's more effective to use your limited time here on earth
> to work towards exactly what you want rather than settling for what
> seems like an easy target.
>
> A little like being in the voting booth and voting either for the
> candidate you really want to win or voting for the candidate in your
> party who has the most funds just because you think they're more
> likely to win.
>
> --Sara
>