Gary Francione Killing Animals Essay

Sentient beings have the ability to feel and perceive. Many individuals debate on the killing of a conscious being. However, many don’t see the tragedy in the killing of billions of animals every year. To begin with, abolitionist believes that we can’t justify animal use (Francione 3). Gary Francione believes that animals are sentient. Even though there are cognitive differences the basic right (deontology) should be respected; not be treated as a property. A sentient being shouldn’t be used as a resource. When an animal is suffering they are aware of the dreadful experience (Francione 4). The use of animals for clothing and food is not necessary; the right approach is to become a vegan. Abolitionist’s agenda is not to just come up with goals

Both positions agree that there are cognitive differences between humans and animals. Singer argues that death does not harm animals. Francione doesn’t agree with his views and argues that nonhumans do suffer. He believes that as long we continue to eat meat the right of not being property will never be achieved. Jeff McMahan believes that animals don’t have time relative interest. Animals do have strong psychological continuities. However, the pleasures we get from killing the animal don’t outweigh the pain they go through. His view is a combination of both abolitionism and welfarism. The wrongness of killing depends on the victims future gains.
A problem for the welfarist approach is that it doesn’t protect animals interests. Their interests are only protected because it’s economical beneficial for humans. Corporations have an advantage in marketing if they tell the public that they support the way farmers treat animals (Francione 12). Being told that animals are being treated humanely encourages individuals to feel better about animal exploitation. These slaughterhouses reinforce animals as property. Welfarists argue that changing methods in the slaughterhouses will decrease demands. Instead its promoting animal