Gary L. Francione Quotes

Vegetarianism As A Moral Position Is No More Coherent Than Saying That You Think It Morally Wrong To Eat Meat From A Spotted Cow But Not Morally Wrong To Eat Meat From A Non-spotted Cow.

I Find It Very Annoying That So Many Animal Advocates Talk About The Difficulty Of Being Vegan. Many Animal Advocates Are Inclined To Make The Issue Their Suffering And Not The Animals' Suffering, And I Suppose That Accounts For Part Of The Reason That Veganism Is Portrayed As Such A "sacrifice." And Many Animal Advocates Are Not Vegans, Or Are "flexible Vegans," Which Means That They Do Not Observe Veganism At All Or Not Consistently, And Emphasizing The Supposed Difficulty Of Veganism Is Part Of Justifying Their Own Behavior.

Domesticated Animals Such As Dogs And Cats Are Vulnerable And Entirely Dependent On Us For All Of Their Needs. They Live Very Unnatural Lives Because They Are Not Part Of The Human World And They Are Not Part Of The Animal World.

99% Of Our Uses Of Animals, Including Our Numerically Most Significant Use Of Them For Food, Do Not Involve Any Sort Of Necessity Or Any Real Conflict Between Human And Nonhuman Interests. If Animals Matter Morally At All, Then, Even Without Accepting A Theory Of Animal Rights, Those Uses Of Animals Cannot Be Morally Justified.

There Is No Morally Coherent Difference Between Fur And Other Animal Clothing, Such As Leather, Wool, Etc., Just As There Is No Morally Coherent Distinction Between Meat And Milk Or Eggs.

But If There Were Two Dogs Left In The Universe And It Were Up To Us As To Whether They Were Allowed To Breed So That We Could Continue To Live With Dogs, And Even If We Could Guarantee That All Dogs Would Have Homes As Loving As The One That We Provide, We Would Not Hesitate For A Second To Bring The Whole Institution Of 'pet' Ownership To An End.

Being Vegan Is Not Just A Matter Of Being 'kind' To Animals. First And Foremost, It Is A Matter Of Being Just And Observing Our Moral Obligation To Not Treat Other Sentient Beings As Things.

Not Only Are The Philosophies Of Animal Rights And Animal Welfare Separated By Irreconcilable Differences... The Enactment Of Animal Welfare Measures Actually Impedes The Achievement Of Animal Rights... Welfare Reforms, By Their Very Nature, Can Only Serve To Retard The Pace At Which Animal Rights Goals Are Achieved.

We Need To Reshape The Movement As One Of Grassroots Activists, And Not 'professional Activists' Who Populate The Seemingly Endless Number Of National Animal Rights Groups. For Many People, Activism Has Become Writing A Check To A National Group That Is Very Pleased To Have You Leave It To Them. Although It Is Important To Give Financial Support To Worthy Efforts Only, Giving Money Is Not Enough And Giving To The Wrong Groups Can Actually Do More Harm Than Good.

We Eat Animals Because They Taste Good. And If That's O.k., What's Wrong With Wearing Fur? We Need As A Society To Think Seriously About Our Institutionalized Animal Use.

There Is Increasing Social Concern About Our Use Of Nonhumans For Experiments, Food, Clothing And Entertainment. This Concern About Animals Reflects Both Our Own Moral Development As A Civilization And Our Recognition That The Differences Between Humans And Animals Are, For The Most Part, Differences Of Degree And Not Of Kind.

We Proclaim Human Intelligence To Be Morally Valuable Per Se Because We Are Human. If We Were Birds, We Would Proclaim The Ability To Fly As Morally Valuable Per Se. If We Were Fish, We Would Proclaim The Ability To Live Underwater As Morally Valuable Per Se. But Apart From Our Obviously Self-interested Proclamations, There Is Nothing Morally Valuable Per Se About Human Intelligence.