Incrementalist Animal Law: Welcome to the Real World
Historically, U.S. rights legislation is all incrementalist as opposed to anti-incrementalist.
This informal study is a history paper, outside
my area of expertise, which is moral philosophy. Nevertheless,
it is attracting much interest, and Bruce Friedrich of People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has publicly proclaimed it
to be "essential reading" on a key question of animal law:
Should we aim for anti-cruelty laws that fall short of animal
rights?
I look at the history of humans' property status, showing that
it never applied to most oppressed humans. In any event, even
though it did apply to African Americans and women, all
legislative progress for these people was in the form of
incrementalist laws. This is shown by consulting the historical
record. It has stirring implications for animal law today. I
also redefine the terms of this debate as animal rights
incrementalism versus animal rights anti-incrementalism.
Some new thoughts are presented, as well, regarding the
objection that anti-cruelty laws will make people too
"complacent."
The paper is available for pdf download.
