Good Debate With Gary Francione at Columbia Law School Today

The animal rights leader, Rutgers Law School Professor Gary Francione, and I debated before more than 100 law students today at Columbia Law School in NYC, at a lunchtime event co-sponsored by the Federalist Society and the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund.  The debate question was, “Do Animals Have the Right Not to be Property?” You can guess who said yes and who said no.

It was, I think, an excellent give and take, substantive, forceful on both sides, intense, but not hostile. We both agreed, in our conversation afterwards, that it is the kind of exchange that there should be more of surrounding this emotional issue.

We each gave an 8 minute opening statement: I went first. I argued (in a very abridged nutshell) that the nature of rights preclude animals from being rights bearers. I quoted Francione as saying that “the right not to be property is another way of saying the right to equal inherent value.” I suggested that such a belief is misanthropic.  I stated that sentience “is an extremely low common denominator” on which to base rights.  Sentience means the ability to perceive sense impressions, and noted that a fly is sentient as it avoids the swatter, indeed, an oyster might be sentient as it is irritated by the grain of sand and constructs a pearl around it to give itself comfort.  Moreover, we should not conflate what might be good policy with “rights.” Animals, I said, are not rights bearing creatures because rights and duty bearing are symbiotically connected.  I rejected Regan’s notion that animals as moral patients should have rights just like human moral patients, since it is in human nature to be moral agents, and there are no animals so capable.  Rights bearing requires the capacity for reciprocity.  Animals have no such capacity, and humans do unless immature, disabled, or very ill.  I urged the importance of human exceptionalism to human freedom and closed with a quote from the primatologist Frans de Waal: “No matter how well intentioned the concerns of animal rights advocates, they are often presented in a manner infuriating to anyone concerned with both people  and animals. Human morality as we know it would unravel very rapidly indeed if it failed to place human life at its core.”

Francione focused forcefully on his contention that sentience grants an individual the right not to be property.  He said that he does not claim that humans and animals are equal in all manner, but that when it comes to having interests and to not be owned, we share commonality.  He directed his  most sustained volley at eating meat, which he says we only do for enjoyment and not out of need.  “We all believe it is wrong to kill any sentient being for frivolous or unnecessary reasons,” he stated forcefully, claiming that eating meat and other instrumental uses are morally wrong and unnecessary for human flourishing, and indeed, we will do better when animals are freed from us, for example, environmentally.  He claimed that there should be no domestic animals, including dogs—he owns (my term!) five, which he and his wife rescued—arguing that we have a duty to care for all domestic animals now alive, but we should stop their procreating and eliminate all husbandry.  Francione noted the  the human capacity for empathy and argued that just as we have come to understand that racism, sexism, and other manners of oppressing humans are wrong, and now we must take the next step.  In the end, he said, it will lead to a more peaceful world.

We then replied to each other and took questions from the students, who pushed both of us on our fundamental premises.  These are very bright young men and women.

Gary and I both agree that the animal rights issue is also fundamentally about what it means to be human.  We would like to take this act on the road to universities all over the country.  We think the students would be very interested and we think the matter important.  We’ll just have to see what develops.

But thanks to Columbia for hosting us and to Gary for a very productive exchange.