This essay by law professors Gary L. Francione and Anna E. Charlton is, to borrow the words of Ronald Dworkin, an "album of confusions." The authors conflate so many things that should be kept separate that I don't know where to begin. I'll just make a list (let "Francione" refer to both authors):
- There's a difference between what the law is and what it ought to be. These law professors have competence only on the first of these questions, though, as citizens, they have every right to address the second question. The point is, their legal expertise is not moral expertise. Their moral beliefs or values have no more weight than anyone else's.
- Utilitarians such as Peter Singer can use the language of rights. Indeed, they can lay claim to being rights theorists. Francione needs to read John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism (1861, 1863) and L. W. Sumner's The Moral Foundation of Rights (1987).
- Francione criticizes Singer, but they share the views that (1) animals have rights and (2) these rights are not absolute. The only difference between them is how much preventable evil (or obtainable good) will justify infringing a right. Francione evidently requires somewhat more than Singer, but that's a matter of degree, not of kind.
- It doesn't follow from the fact that some or many dogs are abused or neglected that all dogs are abused or neglected. Why should those of us who love our animal companions and provide properly for them be deprived of their company, and they of ours, because other people abuse the privilege of owning animal companions?
- Francione makes it sound as though, ideally, dogs and cats would never have been domesticated. This is absurd. Domestication is the ideal; it benefits both the animals domesticated and the people who do the domesticating. Humans are domesticated; what's wrong with that?
- Any theory or principle that implies that there is something wrong with the loving relationships people have with their dogs and cats is false, on the ground that anything that implies a falsehood is false. Next thing you know, Francione will argue that, because some children are abused or neglected, nobody should be allowed to procreate. (For all I know, he already holds this preposterous view.)
- If the property status of animals is what allows them to be mistreated, then that status should be altered. This is what Francione should be working on. Trying to get people to stop acquiring and caring for companion animals is ridiculous, and trying to wish away domestication is, well, delusional.
If there is a general lesson to be learned here, it is that law professors are incompetent to address anything besides the narrowest and most technical of legal questions. On any question other than that, I'll take a philosopher over a law professor any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
