On Morality: Intent Vs. Consequence – Why “Good People” And “Evil People” Don’t Actually Exist

 Duality 01

I don’t think “evil” is something that exists.

By which I mean to say that I don’t believe in the idea that evil is a physical force which hovers in the air and enters people and makes them do things. Nor do I believe in the idea that “some people are ‘evil’ but some people are ‘good’.”

Many people throughout history, no less on social media recently, have expressed the idea that specific people or groups of people “are evil” based on their actions towards human or nonhuman animals. This can range from simply saying that non-Vegans in general are bad people, to saying that hunters are worse than others, saying that people who torture animals are the worst, saying that pedophiles are all monsters, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

However, the idea that “some people are evil, and some people are good” doesn’t make much objective sense. All humans have the capability to perform actions that seem either “evil” or “good”, depending on the perspective of the person performing the action, as well as the person observing the action. Because of this, the very idea that some actions are “good” and some are “evil” doesn’t really make much sense either.

This is not to say that some actions are not destructive or harmful. But ascribing the term “evil” to a person because of an action that they’ve committed, as if simply using that term puts the action into a category that divorces it or the doer from all complexity or renders the doer incapable of being anything other than “evil” is far too simplistic and narrow-minded.

Our human concept of morality itself is an automatic, logical response to the recognition that each being who is capable of feeling pain has an individual interest in not suffering. This recognition is the basis for our notion of whether individuals have such things as “rights.” A “right” is merely a term that we use to mean that we agree to a rule that allows us to protect an interest that we all have. Chief among the “rights” that individuals have is the right to not be used as merely a replaceable resource for human pleasure and other non-necessary (aka non-survival, non-health) interests.

Our human system of justice is based on the notion of a human interest in creating a “social order”; this order aims to regulate our behavior in a way which induces the most happiness, satisfaction and “good health” in general in as many of the members of our moral community as possible, and the least pain, unhappiness, and other forms of suffering. But this is only because we recognize that individuals who are capable of suffering have this right to not be made to suffer for the non-necessary interests of a human.

Now, from a purely practical perspective (before even considering any abstract notions of moral philosophy) if we examine the ideas advanced by Chaos Theory – for instance – we see that any choice we make between a wide array of possible actions means that our chosen action will affect everything else in the world. So basically, everything that happens in the world is a product of a near-infinite number of different inter-connected actions that are performed by everyone and everything in reality over “the course of time” (since by our commonly-held perspective, time is linear, even though from what we can figure out scientifically, it most likely is not): each action affecting or being affected by every other action.

This seems to indicate that any action we commit could have a near-infinite array of both positive and negative consequences. Indeed, each action, as well as each of the consequences which automatically follow from it, could seem either positive OR negative OR both from the perspective of the beings both observing and being affected by them (This has been recognized already for thousands of years by some cultures).

So taking all this into account, how do we determine whether an action that affects others is morally right or wrong? Its simple: we must start by asking whether their are other beings who can feel pain who could become a victim of our actions. Since our actions could be seen as either positive or negative depending on who’s perspective they’re being seen from, it should need no explanation why we should be using the perspective of a potential victim as the measuring stick, and not the perspective of a potential victimizer.

It’s not just the actions or the consequences which determine whether something is right or wrong, but our perspective on those actions and consequences. So that is the ruling factor in whether we should commit an action or not; our own knowledge of whether or not we ourselves perceive our intent and our resultant action to be morally justifiable, based on whether we know if others may or may not be harmed by them unnecessarily. In other words, we must endeavor to commit only actions that have the best chance of causing the least harm through causing the least violations of the rights of others.

In my estimation, this would indicate that the consequences of our actions have absolutely no bearing on our moral culpability. Our actions obviously need to follow logically from our intent, but only our intent means anything when we are determining whether an action fits within our notion of moral responsibility. In other words, only our intent, not the consequences of our actions, should give someone the ability to morally blame us or morally praise us.

People often try to prove the argument that evil people exist with the assertion “But there definitely are people who are evil. I know this is true because this person committed this, this or this horrible action.”

But the point that someone committed an immoral action is not proof that the person in question is evil. This is merely a list of wrong-actions that the person committed. Their actions can be morally justifiable, or not morally justifiable (what we call “immoral”) but that doesn’t make the person “immoral,” nor does it make them “moral.” Everyone, even those who have committed the most heinous acts, has the ability within themselves to change their moral stance so that they are never again going to commit such acts.

Many people often try to counter that argument with the assertion “But this person never did change, so this proves that they were evil. They committed those actions, never regretted it, and died without repenting. This means that they were evil.” But this argument doesn’t prove that at all. All it proves is that the person in question didn’t change, not that they couldn’t have, if they’d lived longer or encountered the right set of circumstances. No human has been proven to be able to predict the future, so saying that we know whether someday someone will change or not is nonsense. There are amazing stories of people who have committed the most heinous actions doing a complete moral “about-face” years afterwards. Add to this point the fact that there are plenty of people who, for one reason or another, have never let on about the regret they felt for their actions. In other words, we often have no way of knowing who will change their moral stance in a specific way, when they will change, or in many cases, even whether they’ve changed at all.

Even putting aside the obvious problems with considering people evil from a rational standpoint, there is a moral problem with just dismissing someone as evil before you’ve seen how their life will turn out. This is because it doesn’t take into consideration the fact that people are eminently capable of changing their moral actions based on new perspectives. In fact, the only real constant in human behavior is change. To dismiss or condemn the entirety of the person as morally worthless based on only some portion of their actions is illogical from a moral standpoint as well.

Also, keep in mind that there are a lot of factors involved in the viewpoints of various people on the myriad actions one could commit and how they relate to morality. In many cases, the intent of a person is to do good, but they are merely confused or unsure what the best course of action is. Some people have been heavily indoctrinated regarding whether an action or set of actions is morally justifiable or not, in various ways and regarding different kinds of beings. Some are more indoctrinated than others, and fear, especially when it’s not even consciously recognized by the fearful, is an incredibly powerful obstacle to moral consistency. There is also the existence of mental disorders, both created by physiological elements and also those related to trauma. These are only a few of the things that often cause perfectly “morally conscious” people to say or do immoral things.

The point is, when we consider the question of how we should be responding to the actions and even the arguments used by non-Vegans to attempt to justify their actions regarding nonhumans, we should keep in mind that we’re not dealing with monsters. We’re dealing with humans, and humans are fallible. They are also capable of massive changes in their moral stance as well as incredible acts of bravery and kindness. I personally have met or have heard the stories from many people who now identify as Vegans and would never have considered going Vegan (and some, in fact, who were die-hard anti-Vegans beforehand, including trophy hunters and slaughterhouse workers) if someone hadn’t been compassionate enough to forgive them and then educate them peacefully on why it’s wrong to use animals. If not for this, they would still be enthusiastically exploiting nonhumans to this day. They themselves admit this. If we want the people who are harming animals for palate pleasure and/or simple convenience -who would otherwise consider ending that behavior- to consider Veganism, then we have to be willing to put our hatred aside and educate them with understanding, instead of condemning them. Representing them as evil (or even “sociopathic,” “psychotic, etc.) to others merely causes them (and other people) to avoid our message about the rights of nonhumans.

Another point to consider: Many of our family and friends may be non-Vegan. They are inflicting just as much unnecessary suffering and death by living that way as any other non-Vegan. Are we ok with considering them “evil” as well? If not, we’re just arbitrarily picking and choosing whom we consider to be evil based on our own fits of anger, random self-interests, or whims. Almost all Vegans were non-Vegan at some point, probably including the person reading this (you). Were we evil? Were you? Doesn’t that mean you are still evil? If we think people are one or the other, good or evil, then where is the line? Where do we draw a line and say that this set of actions makes someone evil, but this other set of actions doesn’t? And who is the authority to draw that line? What makes one person’s opinion on what makes someone evil better than some other person’s completely different (and usually contradictory) opinion?

In summation, it’s irrational, not to mention cruel, to just dismiss someone as evil before you’ve seen how their life will turn out. And publicly stating that someone is evil is a great way to guarantee that they, and probably at least a few other non-Vegans, will refuse to go Vegan, which means that the nonhuman animals lose. Is that what we’re trying to accomplish? Is some sort of catharsis where we obtain a few moments of sick pleasure from publicly vilifying another person (which is almost always due to our own shame because we once engaged in the same non-Vegan actions that they currently are engaging in) worth the very real lives and suffering of nonhumans?

Veganism is a movement of peace. If you think animals have moral value, then follow the path of peace, towards human animals and nonhuman animals alike. Live Vegan. Educate others peacefully about why they need to live Vegan as well.

Yin-Yang 02

If you’re not already Vegan, and you think animals matter morally, then please go Vegan. It’s incredible for the animals, easy and great for you, and wonderful for the planet. If you’re already Vegan, please educate non-Vegans about why they should go Vegan. Please rescue, volunteer, adopt, foster, spay, and neuter the nonhuman refugees of domestication whenever you can. Please feed your nonhuman family Vegan where you can. These things are the most important, morally responsible things to do and are desperately needed by everyone.

To learn more about Abolitionist Veganism and the issues I’ve outlined in this post, check out The Master List Of Vegan Info:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/master-list-of-vegan-info

Disclaimer: My only goal with this list is to produce as comprehensive a resource for Vegan information as possible. I am 100% Abolitionist Vegan and 100% against exploitation of nonhuman or human animals, any type of violence against human or nonhuman persons or property, welfare regulation, any form of speciesism, ethnic bigotry, genderism, ableism, heterosexism, etc., any of the large governmental or non-governmental nonhuman animal organizations, “happy meat,” vegetarianism, veg*nism, Meat-Free Mondays, or other forms of reductionism and anything else that makes it seem like any form of violence or exploitation of animals is ok. If any of those positions are endorsed on any site in this list, or any language is used to imply that, it’s not that I included that link because I agree, but simply because I don’t control every bit of information on all of these sites.

Advertisements

Re-blog: Thoughts on diluting the vegan message

Disclaimer: My only goal with this list is to produce as comprehensive a resource for Vegan information as possible. I am 100% Abolitionist Vegan and 100% against exploitation of nonhuman or human animals, any type of violence against human or nonhuman persons or property, welfare regulation, any form of speciesism, ethnic bigotry, genderism, ableism, heterosexism, etc., any of the large governmental or non-governmental nonhuman animal organizations, “happy meat,” vegetarianism, veg*nism, Meat-Free Mondays, or other forms of reductionism and anything else that makes it seem like any form of violence or exploitation of animals is ok. If any of those positions are endorsed on any site in this list, or any language is used to imply that, it’s not that I included that link because I agree, but simply because I don’t control every bit of information on all of these sites.


“The harm is incalculable as they peddle misinformation, sowing confusion and misleading those whose quest for information is genuine. Because unlike those who firmly believe that they’re Henry VIII or a visitor from Mars, when it comes to veganism, misinformation costs lives. Billions of them every year. Humanity’s victims are depending on us for a clear and consistent message as they stand quaking in the slaughterhouses awaiting their turn for their precious and only lives to be hacked from them for our convenience.”

 

There's an Elephant in the Room blog

sad-pigToday, one of the topics in cyberspace is sites, groups and individuals that call themselves ‘vegan’ when they very plainly are not. ‘So what’s the problem – aren’t they harmless?’ I hear some ask. So I found myself considering two aspects of this; the first is the fact that this hijacking and redefining of a concept such as veganism happens at all, and the second is that these phoney groups always seem to manage to gather followers.

It’s extremely encouraging to see veganism – true veganism – becoming more prevalent and mainstream in the world and that can only be a good thing.

However we live in a culture of media addiction where presentation triumphs so often over substance; a culture of celebrity worship, a culture where ‘trends’ are the star by so which many steer their moral compass through the shifting seas. ‘Vegan’ is becoming a ‘trendy’ word and as a result, there are those who…

View original post 664 more words

Guest Blog: A Short Overview Of Vegan Cat Ethics – by Peter Csere

887288687_n

The following thoughts were posted in the group Healthy Vegan Cats (you need to join to see the posts but if you have cats in your home, it’s worth it) by my friend Peter Csere. He’s an authority on anything Vegan cat-related and a lot of other things about Veganism to boot:

Feeding farmed animal products to domesticated felines is not a humane or vegan option since we are enslaving + murdering one species to feed another which we find prettier and more preferable for companionship.

Letting cats “roam” and “hunt for themselves” is not a humane, vegan, or environmentally sound option since, according to numerous wildlife studies, human-subsidized domestic felines have a HUGE and disastrous impact on local wildlife populations. Domestic felines have singlehandedly caused the extinction of over 33 island species of mammal, reptile, bird, and amphibian, and the number one threat to many endangered songbird and rodent species is the domestic feline. The domestic feline is not even native to North America yet is the most populous feline predator on the continent, numbering over 150 million in the US alone (according to various estimates of “owned” cats and stray cat populations.)

Another important issue is that domestic felines compete for prey with natural/indigenous predator species such as mountain lions, cougars, panthers, and fisher cats. This food competition reduces the possible population of important natural predator species. Even cats that are fed by humans still kill many animals per instinct.

Feeding domestic cats laboratory-grown meat, organs, and bones modeled after their natural prey (insects and rodents) might be an excellent option for the future when laboratory-grown meat becomes economically feasible and in regular production. However, *this option is not currently available.*

I’ve noticed that some people parrot on and on about lab-grown meat but then seem to think that this constant parroting gives them license to continue purchasing real meat to feed to their domesticated cats in the meantime. By all means, donate to lab-grown meat entrepreneurial initiatives, tell your friends, advertise, get the word out and the projects started. But in the meantime, the other arguments regarding humans killing one animal to feed to another animal which they find preferable, still apply.

(Editor’s note: Feeding cats “In Vitro Meat” is a good solution when we’re dealing with the small portion of cats who physically can’t or won’t eat Vegan, this is not meant to endorse In Vitro Meat being fed to *all* cats. I also personally don’t support encouraging In Vitro Meat projects for human consumption whatsoever.)

Feeding cats a plant-based diet which has a sufficient nutritional profile to keep them healthy and happy for a similar lifespan to a domestic cat on a meat-based diet, could be presented as not humane or vegan, since technically it is not “natural” for the cat – but still, *it is the most humane and ethical of all currently available options.*

All these options are side-stepping the real issue, which is that humans are continually unnaturally subsidizing, in-breeding, domesticating, and enslaving an artificial species (the domestic feline) at the cost of much suffering to the cats, the local ecosystems that their inflated population affects, and the animals that they inbreed and enslave to feed the cats. As long as the domestic cat population continues to rise, feeding them vegan diets will help but still will only slow the suffering that results to all involved.

Humans need to learn that when they take an animal with desirable characteristics, and force it to only have sex with another animal with desirable characteristics, and do this generation after generation producing a species with inbred genetic health problems and dependency on humans, much suffering will result. Long-term solutions may or may not include a number of strategies, such as: slowly re-wilding and introducing wild genes back into the domestic cat species, relocating them to their natural habitat, wide-scale spaying and neutering, etc, among others, some of which may be controversial and some not so much.

None of these options can really be considered 100% ethical and humane, but a complete hands-off approach also results in much suffering, so in the meantime, while we struggle to find solutions that best meet the needs of all involved, to this ridiculous problem that only humans are stupid enough to create – we can feed properly-formulated plant foods to domesticated cats and stop enslaving other animals or decimating local ecosystems i.e. making a bad problem worse.

Hope this provides some insight ~ Peter Csere

Here are some more excellent resources on the solutions to the problem of being Vegan and keeping nonhumans in our homes:

https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/nonhuman-refugees

If you’re not already Vegan, and you think animals matter morally, then please go Vegan. It’s easy and great for you, incredible for the animals, and wonderful for the planet. If you’re already Vegan, please educate non-Vegans about why they should go Vegan. Please rescue, volunteer, adopt, foster, spay, and neuter the nonhuman refugees of domestication whenever you can. Please feed your nonhuman family Vegan where you can. These things are the most important, morally responsible things to do and are desperately needed by everyone.

To learn more about Abolitionist Veganism and the issues I’ve outlined in this post, check out The Master List Of Vegan Info:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/master-list-of-vegan-info

Disclaimer: My only goal with this list is to produce as comprehensive a resource for Vegan information as possible. I am 100% Abolitionist Vegan and 100% against exploitation of nonhuman or human animals, any type of violence against human or nonhuman persons or property, welfare regulation, any form of speciesism, ethnic bigotry, genderism, ableism, heterosexism, etc., any of the large governmental or non-governmental nonhuman animal organizations, “happy meat,” vegetarianism, veg*nism, Meat-Free Mondays, or other forms of reductionism and anything else that makes it seem like any form of violence or exploitation of animals is ok. If any of those positions are endorsed on any site in this list, or any language is used to imply that, it’s not that I included that link because I agree, but simply because I don’t control every bit of information on all of these sites.

Creative, Non-Oppressive Vegan Advocacy: So Easy You Can Even Do It On The Phone!

For almost 2 years now I’ve been engaging in CNOVA (Creative, Non-Oppressive Vegan Advocacy). Here is a post that explains why we need to do it and how it’s done:

https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/create-new-vegans

About a year ago I received a call from a telephone solicitor looking to sign me up for something (I think it was home delivery of the local paper). I had just gotten through educating someone in person on Veganism earlier that day (outside a local supermarket). After explaining to the salesperson on the phone that our family would not be able to afford to subscribe to the service, I suddenly got the idea that I might be able to educate him on Veganism right then. So, I asked something along the lines of “Can I ask you an unrelated question?” When he said yes, I asked “Do you think that it’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals?”

I don’t know why, but I expected the response to be much worse than asking someone in person would be. I had visions of him insulting me, cursing me out, or even simply hanging up without comment.

Imagine my pleasant surprise when this person was actually interested in what I had to say! He wasn’t shocked or even surprised by the question. We went through the usual discussion that any polite non-Vegan will have when challenged and he actually had some very pertinent, even insightful questions and comments about what we discussed. I made sure to give him the link to my blog with a recommendation to check out The Master List (giving people links to AbVegan educational info is essential in this situation). Since the first time I educated someone over the phone I’ve refined my approach a bit.

Now I never try to educate on the phone without using this questionnaire, created by a Facebook friend of mine named Chris Petty (I’ve modified/refined the wording of the questionnaire a bit since I first saved and used it):

Veganism Survey 01a

I start by waiting ’til the part where they’re explaining why they called is over. If it’s some business you are interested in, wait ’til you’ve completed that, obviously. If you’re not interested, you can say something similar to what I said above. If they say that they’re willing to discuss an unrelated or tangentially related issue, I then tell them that I have some incredibly important information that I’m trying to give to pretty much everyone I talk to on the phone or in person. I then tell them that a friend of mine created a set of questions in order to help get the dialogue going so they can understand this issue.

At this point, you may get some resistance. The trick is to stay calm and respect the person on the other end of the line. This is true for any point in the conversation. If they’re too resistant to any point, remember that you can always hang up and call someone else. Caller ID may even get you a different salesperson who is more receptive! Within this respectful framework feel free to try to convince them to discuss the issue though. I usually tell them my blog address first, and tell them that if for any reason they need to hang up, they can always go there later at their leisure.

Once they agree to answer the questions, I start with the first one. They usually just answer “no.” If they start making defensive arguments that early, you may have a difficult climb ahead. With question 2, I’ve recently started making sure to use the phrase “such as their flesh, dairy, eggs or honey” to ensure they don’t forget any of the nonhumans, like the bees, who almost every person automatically overlooks. If no defensiveness is exhibited, I usually follow question 3 by making the statement that “it’s unnecessary because the top 18 or 20 health organizations on the planet have made statements that we don’t need any animal substances in our diet. And every time we use them for those substances we cause them to suffer.” Usually, the arguments don’t start ’til after question 3, if at all.

If no defensiveness yet, question 4 is usually easy. The reaction I most often get is very thoughtful. You can then give them a very basic explanation of Veganism, just to be sure they understand it. The one I use most often is “Because Veganism simply means that if we don’t have a real necessity to use animals, and since using them causes them to suffer unnecessarily, then it’s wrong to do it, so we have a moral responsibility to stop using them. It’s not only the right thing to do for animals, but it’s also easy and good for you.” This is a good point to link consuming nonhuman flesh and secretions as food with all other forms of animal use as well.

Then it’s on to question 5. Here also we sometimes get some defensive arguments. However, as long as we reassure the person we don’t hate them and we’re not attacking their character, we should be able to counter their arguments without causing them too much distress. The arguments I’ve presented in the link at the top of this post as well as other places on my blog are invaluable for this purpose.

Question 6 is a no-brainer IF they’ve followed your argument up to this point. For question 7 on the phone, I would simply give the person the link to the best Abolitionist Vegan site you know about. Obviously, I always give out the link to my blog, since it has links to many other AbVegan sites right here. In fact, I commonly give people the link even before we start the questionnaire, just in case the call is unexpectedly or suddenly ended and they want to go to the site later. If talking to someone in person, it’s helpful to have a pamphlet or leaflet already printed to give to them, but in a pinch, simply writing the link to a site on a piece of scrap paper also works.

Most of the time this goes very well. Maybe you could try it? As long as we’re calm, nonviolent and don’t promote speciesism, what could it hurt, right? And we’ve got everything to gain. And more importantly, the nonhumans literally have everything to gain, like their lives and their freedoms.

If you think you’d like to try Vegan Education over the phone, please make sure to read my post on CNOVA thoroughly first.

If you’re not already Vegan, and you think animals matter morally, then please go Vegan. It’s easy and great for you, incredible for the animals, and wonderful for the planet. If you’re already Vegan, please educate non-Vegans about why they should go Vegan. Please rescue, volunteer, adopt, foster, spay, and neuter the nonhuman refugees of domestication whenever you can. Please feed your nonhuman family Vegan where you can. These things are the most important, morally responsible things to do and are desperately needed by everyone.

To learn more about Abolitionist Veganism and the issues I’ve outlined in this post, check out The Master List Of Vegan Info:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/master-list-of-vegan-info

Disclaimer: My only goal with this list is to produce as comprehensive a resource for Vegan information as possible. I am 100% Abolitionist Vegan and 100% against exploitation of nonhuman or human animals, any type of violence against human or nonhuman persons or property, welfare regulation, any form of speciesism, ethnic bigotry, genderism, ableism, heterosexism, etc., any of the large governmental or non-governmental nonhuman animal organizations, “happy meat,” vegetarianism, veg*nism, Meat-Free Mondays, or other forms of reductionism and anything else that makes it seem like any form of violence or exploitation of animals is ok. If any of those positions are endorsed on any site in this list, or any language is used to imply that, it’s not that I included that link because I agree, but simply because I don’t control every bit of information on all of these sites.

Welfare-Watch: Observing The Moral Confusion In Animal Welfare And Single-Issue Campaigns

Lost and Confused Signpostconfused-manConfused (1)

I’m making separate posts on individual issues related to Veganism, so that anyone who wants a handy reference guide to each issue won’t have to go through my entire link list to find it. The links included in each individual post may not be updated regularly, so the Master List will be the only place to find complete updates. These posts will be comprehensive enough to cover most or all questions related to each issue however.

Disclaimer: My only goal with this list is to produce as comprehensive a resource for Vegan information as possible. I am 100% Abolitionist Vegan and 100% against exploitation of nonhuman and human animals, any type of violence against human or nonhuman persons or property, welfare regulation, any form of speciesism, ethnic bigotry, genderism, ableism, heterosexism, etc., any of the large governmental or non-governmental nonhuman animal organizations, “happy meat,” vegetarianism, veg*nism, Meat-Out Mondays, or other forms of reductionism and anything else that makes it seem like any form of violence or exploitation of animals is ok. If any of those positions are endorsed on any site in this list, or any language is used to imply that, it’s not that I included that link because I agree, but simply because I don’t control every bit of information on all of these sites.

The most important files to study:

“Commentary #16: Responding to Questions: Single-Issue Campaigns and MDA Opposition to the Abolitionist Approach”:
http://media.blubrry.com/garylfrancione/p/www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/podcast/20100326-araa-commentary-16.mp3

“Why Not Single Issue Campaigns And Petitions”:
http://elated.co.za/why-not-single-issue-campaigns-and-petitions

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-welfare-regulation-happy-exploitation-and-speciesism

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-four-problems-of-animal-welfare-in-a-nutshell

Sub-Section 1B16b1:
Animal Welfare:

“LANGUAGE MATTERS VOL. 2 – ANIMALS AREN’T ‘VOICELESS’, WE’RE JUST NOT LISTENING”:
http://blog.veganeducationgroup.com/language-matters-vol-2-animals-arent-voiceless-were-just-not-listening

“So What’s the Matter with Mercy for Animals?”:
http://my-face-is-on-fire.blogspot.com/2012/12/so-whats-matter-with-mercy-for-animals.html

“Some Thoughts on Why Vegans Criticise Vegans for Promoting Veganism”:
http://veganismisnonviolence.com/2014/02/11/criticisingvegans

“On Speciesism And Token Gestures”:
http://my-face-is-on-fire.blogspot.com/2014/06/on-speciesism-and-token-gestures.html?showComment=1404382988030

“Animal Advocacy and The Scientific Method: The Humane Research Council Study”:
http://veganpublishers.com/animal-advocacy-and-the-scientific-method-the-humane-research-council-study

My writings on Welfarism:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/05/17/why-animal-welfare-doesnt-work
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/04/16/yet-another-reason-why-sics-dont-work

“Is Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) anti-vegan?”:

http://www.vegantrove.com/2015/08/26/vegan-trove-podcast-0019

” ‘Vegan’ Outreach has blood on their hands”:
http://www.examiner.com/article/vegan-outreach-has-blood-on-their-hands

“The Humane Society of the United States: The Public Relations Branch of Animal Industry”:
The Humane Society of the United States: The Public Relations Branch of Animal Industry

“Why ‘Happy Meat’ Is Always Wrong”:
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/435640/1/why-happy-meat-is-always-wrong

“Advanced Advocacy”:
http://www.humanemyth.org/advancedadvocacy.htm

Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary:
http://www.peacefulprairie.org/freerange1.html

“Invasion of the Movement Snatchers: A Social Justice Cause Falls Prey to the Doctrine of “Necessary Evil” By James LaVeck – October, 2006:
http://www.humanemyth.org/invasion.htm

“Activists have no business promoting the agenda of corporate lobbyists”:
http://aella.org/2012/04/activists-have-no-business-promoting-the-agenda-of-corporate-lobbyists

“The HSUS Missouri Agriculture Council”:
https://donotlink.it/mX1E

“Greenpeace Supports Killing Whales — But Do Detractors Support Something Similar?”
http://challengeoppression.com/2010/06/21/greenpeace-supports-killing-whales-but-do-detractors-support-something-similar

“A critique of Vegan Outreach literature”:
http://www.examiner.com/article/a-critique-of-vegan-outreach-literature

Anders Branderud’s archive of answers to Welfarism (among other things):
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/05/abolitionist-veganism-articles.html

“Legal Protections for Farm Animals”:
http://www.aspca.org/fight-cruelty/farm-animal-cruelty/legal-protections-farm-animals

Professor Gary Francione on Welfarism:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-welfare-regulation-happy-exploitation-and-speciesism
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-four-problems-of-animal-welfare-in-a-nutshell
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-welfare-militant-direct-action-mantras-and-faith
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/veganism-just-another-way-of-reducing-suffering-or-a-fundamental-principle-of-justice-nonviolence

“Incremental Reform in the Human Context Is Not Analogous to Welfare Reform and Single-Issue Campaigns in the Nonhuman Context”:

Incremental Reform in the Human Context Is Not Analogous to Welfare Reform and Single-Issue Campaigns in the Nonhuman Context

Sea Shepherd is not an AR org.:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/sea-shepherd-weighs-in-on-cecil-the-lion-insisting-on-veganism-is-purism-and-elitist

_

Sub-Section 1B16b2:
Single Issue Campaigns:

“Commentary #16: Responding to Questions: Single-Issue Campaigns and MDA Opposition to the Abolitionist Approach”:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/commentary-16-responding-to-questions

“Abolition and Incremental Reform”:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/abolition-and-incremental-reform

“A Good Example of What’s Wrong with Single-Issue Campaigns”:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/good-example-whats-wrong-single-issue-campaigns

“A Short Note on Abolitionist Veganism as a Single Issue Campaign”:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-short-note-on-abolitionist-veganism-as-a-single-issue-campaign

“Hey, Is That Milk on Your Balaclava?”:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/hey-is-that-milk-on-your-balaclava

“Important Announcement: No Factory-Farmed Small Fish Friday”:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/important-announcement-no-factory-farmed-small-fish-friday

“Is Every Campaign a Single-Issue Campaign?”:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/is-every-campaign-a-single-issue-campaign

“Multiple Choice Test”:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/multiple-choice-test

“New York Times Debate on Carriage Horses”:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/new-york-times-debate-carriage-horses

“On Johnny Weir, Single-Issue Campaigns, Treatment, and Abolitionist Veganism”:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/on-johnny-weir-single-issue-campaigns-treatment-and-abolitionist-veganism

“Save a Seal; Eat Non-Canadian Seafood”:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/save-a-seal-eat-non-canadian-seafood

“Single-Issue Campaigns and the Adoption/Fostering of Homeless Nonhuman Animals”:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/single-issue-campaigns-and-the-adoptionfostering-of-homeless-nonhuman-animals

“Single-Issue Campaigns in Human & Nonhuman Contexts”:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/single-issue-campaigns-and-in-human-nonhuman-contexts

“The Great Ape Project: Not so Great”:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-great-ape-project-not-so-great

“The Kapparos Campaign: A Good Example of What’s Wrong with Single-Issue Campaigns”:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-kapparos-campaign-a-good-example-whats-wrong-single-issue-campaigns

“The Ringling Circus Elephants: Another “Victory” That Isn’t”:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ringling-circus-elephants-another-victory-isnt

“My Thoughts on Single-Issue Animal “Rights” Campaigns”:

Posted by Keith Berger on Tuesday, June 23, 2015

“”Vague-an” Outreach (the organization)? Never. Abolitionism? Always”:

Posted by Keith Berger on Friday, July 31, 2015

“Why Not Single Issue Campaigns And Petitions”:
http://elated.co.za/why-not-single-issue-campaigns-and-petitions

“Picking the Low-Hanging Fruit: What Is Wrong with Single Issue Campaigns?”:
http://www.howtogovegan.org/singleissuecampaigns

“Why Protests Are For The Most Part Useless”:
http://thevegancommunicator.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/why-protests-are-for-the-most-part-useless-2

Palm Oil Is Vegan:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/everyone-should-consume-palm-oil
http://www.theswitchreport.com.au/top-stories/boycotting-palm-oil-not-way-save-orangutans
_

Sub-Section 1B16b3:
Defining Abolitionism In Regards To Welfarism And SICs:

“Factionalism in the Nonhuman Animal Rights Movement”:
http://academicabolitionistvegan.blogspot.com/2013/07/factionalism-in-nonhuman-animal-rights.html

“Ten Myths of New Welfarism”:
https://uvearchives.wordpress.com/category/ten-myths-of-new-welfarism

“Reclaiming Abolitionism: It’s Time For Us To Take A Stand For Animals”:
Reclaiming Abolitionism: It’s Time for Us to Take a Stand for Animals

My explanation of the various A.R. factions in a nutshell:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/what-is-animal-rights
_

Sub-Section 1B16b4:
Evidence Of The Ineffectiveness Of S.I.C.s:

“Reining in the Elephants: Thinking Critically about Single-Issue Campaigns”:
http://academicabolitionistvegan.blogspot.com/2015/03/reining-in-elephants-thinking.html
_

Sub-Section 1B16b5:
PETA:

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/links/p2900/newsweek-magazine.pdf
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=710775368978700&id=162378977151678

“Deconstructing PETA’s Thinking”:
http://thevegancommunicator.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/deconstructing-petas-thinking

“PETA: A Corporate Tangle Of Contradictions”:
http://veganismisnonviolence.com/2012/04/02/peta-a-corporate-tangle-of-contradictions

“When Sex Doesn’t Sell: Using Sexualized Images of Women Reduces Support for Ethical Campaigns”:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pone.0083311

“PETA fat-shames in ‘Save the Whales’ campaign”:
http://feministing.com/2009/08/17/peta-fat-shames-in-save-the-whales-campaign

“PETA cool with lobster death – if at the White House”:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/peta-cool-with-lobster-death-if-at-the-white-house/article/2530980

“PETA employees’ prosecution exposed a shocking (and deadly) practice”:
http://www.examiner.com/article/peta-employees-prosecution-exposed-a-shocking-and-deadly-practice

“PETA’s Death Cult, Part 1: Celebrities Getting Naked in the Name of Euthanasia”:
http://dysarm.com/petas-death-cult-2

“PETA’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad History of Killing Animals”:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/petas-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-history-of-killing-animals/254130

“Controlling an animal as deadly as a weapon” or how PETA advocates killing all pitbulls:
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Controlling-an-animal-as-deadly-as-a-weapon-2629558.php

“Don’t turn your back on feral cats” or how PETA advocates killing all feral cats:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Don-t-turn-your-back-on-fe-by-People-for-the-Eth-101022-19.html

“Strange but True… PETA’s stance on Feral Cats…”:
http://www.feralchange.org/#!petas-policy-on-ferals–seriously/c10cq

My blog post on PETA:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/is-peta-justified

If you’re not already Vegan, and you think animals matter morally, then please go Vegan. It’s easy and great for you, incredible for the animals, and wonderful for the planet. If you’re already Vegan, please educate non-Vegans about why they should go Vegan. Please rescue, volunteer, adopt, foster, spay, and neuter the nonhuman refugees of domestication whenever you can. Please feed your nonhuman family Vegan where you can. These things are the most important, morally responsible things to do and are desperately needed by everyone.

To learn more about Abolitionist Veganism and the issues I’ve outlined in this post, check out The Master List Of Vegan Info:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/master-list-of-vegan-info

Disclaimer: My only goal with this list is to produce as comprehensive a resource for Vegan information as possible. I am 100% Abolitionist Vegan and 100% against exploitation of nonhuman or human animals, any type of violence against human or nonhuman persons or property, welfare regulation, any form of speciesism, ethnic bigotry, genderism, ableism, heterosexism, etc., any of the large governmental or non-governmental nonhuman animal organizations, “happy meat,” vegetarianism, veg*nism, Meat-Free Mondays, or other forms of reductionism and anything else that makes it seem like any form of violence or exploitation of animals is ok. If any of those positions are endorsed on any site in this list, or any language is used to imply that, it’s not that I included that link because I agree, but simply because I don’t control every bit of information on all of these sites.