Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to 

Animal Rights

Some argue that since nonhuman animals eat other nonhumans in the wild, our use of 

animals is "natural."

There are four responses to this position.

First, although some animals eat each other in the wild, many do not. Many animals are 

vegetarians. Moreover, there is far more cooperation in nature than our imagined “cruelty 

of nature” would have us believe.

Second, whether animals eat other animals is beside the point. How is it relevant whether 

animals eat other animals? Some animals are carnivorous and cannot exist without eating 

meat. We do not fall into that category; we can get along fine without eating meat, and 

more and more people are taking the position that our health and environment would both 

benefit from a shift away from a diet of animals products.

Third, animals do all sorts of things that humans do not regard as morally appropriate. For 

example, dogs copulate and defecate in the street. Does that mean that we should follow 

their example?

Fourth, it is interesting that when it is convenient for us to do so, we attempt to justify our 

exploitation of animals by resting on our supposed “superiority.” And when our supposed 

“superiority” gets in the way of what we want to do, we suddenly portray ourselves as 

nothing more than another species of wild animal, as entitled as foxes to eat chickens.

Gary L. Francione

Professor, Rutgers University