1

______________________________
]Stephen lanson receied his Ph.D in philosophy rom Georgetown Uniersity in
2002 and teaches ethics and medical and proessional ethics at McNeese State
Uniersity. le writes in the areas o theory and pedagogy o medical ethics, animal
ethics and enironmental concerns, and other social policy issues.

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-16.
Stephen lanson

Utilitarianism, Animals, and the Problem of Numbers
J


Stephen lanson]

1he question raised in this essay is whether illegal animal
liberation actiities can be justiied by a utilitarian analysis. 1he orm
o utilitarianism I will discuss is known as act-utilitarianism, which
states that an action is right when, o all the actions possible to a
gien agent at a gien time, that action will produce the best ratio o
good consequences to bad consequences or all sentient beings
aected.
2
I argue that utilitarianism can only justiy illegal animal
liberation actiities under certain airly uncommon circumstances. I
will describe some o the diiculties in justiying any illegal act on
utilitarian grounds, elaborate the sorts o circumstances under which
illegal acts could be justiied in a utilitarian ramework, and then
begin to ealuate how a utilitarian may determine whether a particular
proposed illegal action can be justiied.
1his might seem a rather narrow objectie, since utilitarianism
is but one o multiple moral theories that people consider. An
actiist could agree with the argument herein and still eel she could
ignore the conclusion because she is not utilitarian, preerring instead
a rights-based or a irtue-based approach. \et my argument may be
more generally applicable to actiists than it might initially seem. By
deinition, actiists seek to eect change in the world around them,
and are thus concerned primarily with their actions bringing about a
desired set o results. Consequently, to argue that a utilitarian ought
to act in such-and-such a ashion because that produces the best
results or humans and other animals is also to argue that actiists
who are truly concerned about producing the best results or animals
should perorm the same actions. A utilitarian argument should
thereore be generally applicable to many actiists.
3

I intend this article as a challenge to those who adocate illegal
orms o direct action as morally and practically appropriate means
or liberation o animals. By the goal o the liberation o animals` I
mean making our society one that no longer treats sentient animals as
ood, tools or human use, or property o any kind. 1he kinds o
illegal actions I mean here include, but are not limited to, things like
sabotage, arson, destruction or thet o data, breaking into a site such
as a laboratory or actory arm to remoe animals ,including open
rescues` as well as anonymous, closed` rescues, and any kind o
2

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-16.
Stephen lanson.


trespassing on priate property, een i only to make audio or ideo
recordings o abusie conditions.
4
\hile illegal actiities certainly can
produce some good results, their eectieness can also be oerstated,
the challenge I issue to actiists is to think careully about the long-
term consequences o illegal actions to ensure that they will produce
the most good in the long run, and I suggest some reasons why such
a long-term approach is the right approach to take.
My key concern is that illegal actions may win a short-term
ictory - reeing animals, reealing the ugly truth about a lab or
actory arm, or orcing the closure o a particular acility - but be
counter-productie to the oerall struggle ought out in the hearts
and minds o the public as a whole. 1rue, not eery illegal action is
counterproductie. listorically, it can be seen that een some acts o
pure sabotage can sere as rallying points and lightning rods or
change - consider, or example, the Boston 1ea Party where in 13
the Sons o Liberty destroyed 342 crates o British tea. But other
such acts can damage one`s causes in the minds o a public whose
support they need. 1he challenge is to ensure that the illegal action
in question is truly the best option one has or the long-term goal o
animal liberation.
1he target o this essay is the liberationist who is considering,
among arious options, an illegal action as a means o urthering the
cause o animal liberation. I also challenge, by extension, those who
support illegal liberation actiities. It should go without saying that
many liberationists employ or support legal tactics as well as illegal
tactics, as they realize that legal actions can be quite productie in at
least some cases. In order to deend an illegal action, howeer, one
must consider the results o one`s actions ,both intended and
unintended, the grounds or any possible justiication o illegal
actions, and the possible legal alternaties.
Media Coverage in the Context of Iear of 1errorism
One reason that utilitarian concerns tend to make one aoid
illegal or iolent actions is that our actions oten hae unintended
side-eects, all o which must be considered when calculating what
results a gien action produces. Particularly ,but not exclusiely,
gien the current ear o terrorism in the United States and many
other \estern countries, many orms o destruction or iolence
against one`s own society can be perceied by the general public as
being similar, and wrong. Recent terrorist actions in America, Spain,
Russia, and elsewhere hae made many people ery wary o any
destructie or illegal actiities, whateer the justiication. \hen
animal rights actiists employ iolence, thet, destruction o property,
and the like, it is possible that many members o the public will
consider only the iolence and not the reasons behind it. In the
3

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-16.
Stephen lanson.


current climate o ear and you are either with us or against us`
mentality, illegal and,or iolent actiities - een those in serice o
laudable goals - are subject to being labeled as terrorist` and can
easily produce results contrary to their intended goals.
It does not ollow rom this that no illegal act o liberation
could be iewed positiely by a signiicant segment o the general
public, but it does make it more diicult. Say media manipulation
can make the argument to the public that a particular act o sabotage,
iniltration, or animal liberation is justiied. In 1985, or example, the
ALl reed a baby macaque monkey named Britches` rom a
gruesome experiment. Dramatic beore and ater` images o
Britches were documented in a PL1A ideo that earned widespread
sympathy or the actiists and contempt or the experimenters.
,Newkirk, reerenced in Best and Nocella 22,. It also matters
whether one can obtain a broad audience or that media
manipulation, as was done ,though not without a air amount o
diiculty, in the case o the 1984 ALl raid on the head injury lab at
the Uniersity o Pennsylania ,Orlans, et al Chapter 3,. On the
other hand, it is hard to deny the negatie impact o ootage o the
smoking ruin o a building destroyed by arson on the eleen-o`clock
news.
In her contribution to the anthology, 1errori.t. or reeaov
igbter.. Reftectiov. ov tbe iberatiov of .vivat., Karen Dawn questions
whether there is such a thing as bad press or animal liberation, as the
animals could not be doing worse and since any press raises the issue
o animal suering or urther public discussion ,Dawn esp. 216-
222,. Others, howeer, dispute this. In the same olume, 1om Regan
argues that bad press due to iolent actions is a tactical disaster`
because it gies animal user industries ree press coerage to push
their anti-animal rights agendas ,Regan 234,. lurther, though Dawn
does a good job at inding the beneits een in mocking or otherwise
negatie media coerage ,221-222,, a utilitarian must do more than
ind some good in the spin o an action - she must look to see
whether that action produced the most good possible. Len i there
is no wholly bad press, there certainly is better and worse press.
In any case, certain actions may be more diicult to spin in the
media. Generally, it is harder to get positie coerage or destructie
actions than non-destructie ones. Actions that acquire ideo or
audio documentation that can be used to show the public graphically
why the action was perormed make it easier to obtain sympathetic
coerage. Such was obiously true in the cases o Britches and the U.
Penn experiments mentioned aboe. \hat is being targeted also
matters. Consequently, foie gra. and eal production make or easier
media spin because they inole serious isible damage to animals
most people can more easily eel sympathetic towards ,see Dawn
4

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-16.
Stephen lanson.


21-220,.
5
Destruction by arson o a laboratory where experiments
were perormed on mice genetically modiied to be aected by lIV
would be a much harder sell. linally, as Karen Dais points out in
her essay in 1errori.t. or reeaov igbter.., the theatre` or style o how
one documents a raid or illegal action, including eatures such as
body language and clothing, can also aect how it is perceied ,see
Dais esp. 206-,.
At least some o these concerns are taken into account by
media conscious actiists. But the current social context o the
action also matters, and that is currently a problem or animal
liberationists. 1he United States Department o Justice has labeled
the LLl and ALl the top two domestic terrorist organizations, this
aects their ability to access mainstream media saely or eectiely
and to get their message through without negatie spin. Much o the
media is also generally conseratie, corporate-controlled, and
thereore business-riendly. Lspecially in an enironment already less
than willing to treat justiications rom certain sources as credible, all
o this must be accounted or when judging the results o an action.
,More on this concern will be discussed below as the problem o
credibility.`,
1he upshot o the concern about unintended consequences ri.
a ri. the general public is that persons can be turned away rom the
reasonable goals o animal liberation i they ocus on rejecting the
methods instead o understanding the message, and i they eel that
the animal industry is a ictim rather than the animals themseles.
\orse, they can be more easily guided by say media manipulation
to ignore animal adocacy to side with those with ested interests in
using and abusing animals. In this way, een a successul liberation
attempt can become a long-term ailure. 1he liberationist who, or
example, breaks into a laboratory to ree caged animals, may rescue
some animals but risks losing many humans to the cause unless the
general public can be careully guided in its understanding o the
case. 1his can be done in some cases, such as in the armed animal
rescue ideos shot by Compassion Oer Killing. Still, the current
state o corporate ownership and manipulation o mainstream media
can make this more diicult than it might hae been at other times.
6

Illegal actions to liberate animals may present a rare dramatic
opportunity to hae the press coer atrocious animal treatment, but
they can also gie opponents the opportunity to mischaracterize and
demonize animal liberationists as dangerous, nae, or terrorist`.
1hat this is not air - that the arguments which lead persons away
rom liberation are not as good as those which argue in aor o
liberation - is o little import, what matters is whether an action
produces the best results possible. 1he potential or negatie side-
eects must be careully taken into account in any justiication o an
5

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-16.
Stephen lanson.


illegal action.
Because o the dangers o media manipulation and negatie
inluence on public opinion, the burden o proo is on an
underground liberationist to show that illegal eorts produce more
good than legal actions. \et all this may suggest is that certain illegal
actions are less likely to hae the best oerall eect, while other
actions more directly aimed at improing the media image o animal
liberation and liberationists might hae a positie eect on public
opinion. 1his will be discussed in more depth below.
In the ace o this, can illegal liberation eorts be justiied on
utilitarian grounds As I will argue, they may be so justiied or some
actions under certain circumstances but not or other actions or in
other circumstances, a conclusion consistent with the act-utilitarian
ocus on assessing the results o speciic actions. 1he question will
become which set o circumstances is more consistent with the
oerall goal o animal liberation.
1he Problem of Numbers and the Basis for a Utilitarian
Argument for Illegal Actions
A utilitarian argument could be made or seeking direct, een
possibly illegal, animal liberation under certain circumstances. But to
describe those circumstances requires some groundwork. Since
armed animals constitute by ar the largest number o animals used
by humans, let us consider their plight. 1he quantity o animals
raised and slaughtered or ood eery year is staggering. According
to the US Department o Agriculture, there are about 60 million pigs,
2 million cattle, 24 million turkeys and oer 8 billion chickens
being raised or slaughter in the United States alone ,USDA
Lconomic Research Serice,. \hen one is debating what to do with
one`s limited time and ability to inluence animal lies, attempting to
change, een minutely, the conditions in which animals are raised has
the ability to inluence literally billions o beings` lies. Len i they
would still eentually be slaughtered, the small improement in their
lies is multiplied times billions, which entails that gradual change
might easily be the action that produces the most good. Call this the
problem o numbers`.
1he problem o numbers might appear to show that seeking to
change the status o animals raised or ood ia lobbying eorts, or
seeking to change people`s minds through lealeting and rational
argument, would be actions most likely to positiely aect the most
animal lies. So many animals could be aected that een minor
successes could create a large amount o good. Since there are many
ways to improe the lot o armed animals while acting within the
law, and since there are numerous hazards with acting outside the
law, this problem might initially make one think that a utilitarian
6

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-16.
Stephen lanson.


should ,under normal circumstances, hold that we ought to spend
most o our limited actiist time and energy seeking to positiely
aect these billions o animal lies in legal ashions. loweer, under
certain circumstances, just the opposite may be true.
1he issue o the number o animals aected could be used to
deend the claim that illegal eorts might be morally permissible
under certain conditions. 1he rationale or this deense comes rom
a long-term understanding o the problem o numbers. 1he
argument depends on two opposing hypothetical statements: what
should be done i legal actions alone can lead to complete liberation
and what should be done i they cannot. 1he eentual aim o all
animal liberation eorts is a world in which animals are not treated as
ood, entertainment, or unwilling experimental subjects. I this goal
can be eentually obtained by operations largely within the legal
system, then the arguments aboe suggest that the best approach to
pursue would normally be engaging with the system by lobbying,
demonstrating, raising public awareness, and the like. Such methods
are saer and aoid the diiculties o the terrorist` label in the
media, as well as the negatie publicity that can be attached to illegal
and,or destructie actions. I employing only legal eorts will lead
to liberation, that approach is best, since it would aoid dangerous
pitalls, may produce immediate improements, and could still reach
the eentual goal. In act, i there is een a reasonable chance that
such an approach will eentually produce liberation or a signiicant
number o animals, a utilitarian argument holds that one ought to
pursue that approach as long as it seems likely to attain that goal.
loweer, i it is the case that there is little to no likelihood that
the larger goal o animal liberation will eentually happen as a result
o employing only legally accessible methods, then the utilitarian
conclusion becomes ery dierent. I, or example, liberationists
cannot get their message clearly portrayed in the corporate-owned
media, or eorts to modiy laws are eectiely blocked by deep-
pocketed lobbyists, then legal methods at modiying public opinion
and law may be ineectie at achieing or een approaching the
desired goal o a society that does not exploit or mistreat animals.
Since that is the oerall aim o the animal liberation moement, a
utilitarian argument can justiy illegal actions in this context i
employing those actions as well could lead to oerall liberation.
\hateer it is that can best lead to liberation, no matter how small
the chance that it will succeed, may be done i that is the only way to
attain liberation. Len i using both legal and illegal liberation eorts
oer only a small chance o success, i they oer some chance and all
other plausible eorts to attain liberation hae been exhausted, then
are those the eorts a utilitarian ought to pursue. In the same ein, i
illegal eorts combined with legal eorts oer a chance or


___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-16.
Stephen lanson.


liberation, but legal eorts alone do not, then liberationists must
engage in both legal and illegal actions.
Consequently, i legal eorts such as lobbying, public speaking,
lealeting, protesting, and other methods o change and persuasion
cannot or will not eentually lead to signiicant liberation, then a
utilitarian must do something else. Under these circumstances, illegal
liberation eorts could be supported by a utilitarian argument.
Joshua Irank's Proposal and the Problem of Credibility
So the question or a utilitarian pondering what to do becomes,
is it possible or an action within the system to moe us closer the
eentual goal o liberation I not, then illegal actions may be
justiiable. A useul tool or judging may come rom 1om Regan.
le gies a set o criteria or justiying what he calls iolent actions
which include ensuring that iolence is only used when necessary to
rescue innocent animals rom terrible harms, and holding that
iolence could only be justiied i all reasonable noniolent
alternaties hae been exhausted ,233,. le claims that in many cases
where iolence is aimed at reeing innocent animals, noniolent
alternaties hae not been exhausted and consequently the actions
are not justiied ,234,. 1hough Regan is obiously speaking as a
rights theorist and not as a utilitarian, and though he speaks o
iolent actions instead o illegal ones, a similar claim could be made
o illegal actions generally. Because o the concerns discussed aboe
and elaborated below, illegal actions can generally only be justiied i
the legal options able to produce comparable results hae been
exhausted.
It is surely too early to hold that we hae exhausted all plausible
legal options in all areas o animal abuse. 1hough arguments or
animals haing moral alue go at least as ar back as Ancient Greece,
the modern animal liberation moement is quite new. 1he ery
notion o a liberation moement o any sort, ater all, is a relatiely
new concept. 1he initial publication o Animal Liberation in 195
was an eye-opening experience or many people, many o the journals
dealing with this relatiely new concept began only as early as 199
,Singer 85-6,. 1he ALl was oicially created in Lngland in 196
,Best and Nocella 20,. \e are no more than one generation away
rom the ery concept o animal liberation being introduced in any
ashion whatsoeer to most persons. \e cannot know that it is
impossible or improbable that mass change cannot result simply by
showing more and more people the truth, working to change laws,
teaching, speaking, and so on to achiee a critical mass` o persons
who no longer wish to exploit animals. It is ery early in a moement
with the goal o nothing less than a radical restructuring o society to
declare that working within the system has ailed and that only
8

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-16.
Stephen lanson.


methods outside the system can be eectie.
But it could still be the case that a particular illegal eort could
be the action in a gien circumstance most likely to moe society
towards improement and eentual liberation. 1his means that
persons compelled by utilitarian concerns to consider animals as
morally releant must seek to determine what, in the time and
location in which they are working, will truly lead to the best results.
Utilitarianism could justiy some illegal actions, i those actions are
likely to produce the most good, but the standard o justiication
which must be met is quite high, including considering some options
which may seem unpalatable. As an example o how one might
determine whether a gien action meets this high justiicatory
standard, I will ealuate a recent deense o one type o illegal
actiism.
Joshua lrank has recently argued in this journal that illegal
actiities hae led and can continue to lead to signiicant increases in
public awareness about the conditions o animals in experimentation
and actory arming. lrank argues that most Americans think that
animals should be protected rom at least some harms, and that most
persons think that standard arming practices do constitute
unacceptable harms ,5,. But i persons are to be able to ote with
their dollars` against animal cruelty, he notes, they must know what is
going on behind the scenes ,2,. It is not that people do not care
about what happens to animals, but that ,generally, they do not know
what happens. linally, he argues that images and ideo hae a
signiicantly stronger impact than mere descriptions when it comes to
making people understand what is actually going on in arming
practices, etc. ,6,. loweer, there are legislatie and judicial
roadblocks in place which make legally obtaining such images and
ideo diicult ,-8,. lrom this he concludes that illegal eorts to
obtain the ideo and images that are so inluential in changing
people`s iews about actory arms and the like remain necessary and
justiied on a utilitarian ramework. ,1hough he does not use the
word utilitarian` he argues in an essentially utilitarian ashion that
we must ealuate the consequences o our actions, both positie and
negatie, in terms o their proiding beneits to human and animal
interests.,
I argue that this conclusion may not be justiied. lrank rightly
notes that there hae been a number o successul ALl raids that
hae acquired ideo ootage that has been helpul in reealing the
inner workings o laboratories. 1he ilm |vvece..ar, v.., or
example, which was made rom stolen tapes shot by researchers
themseles at the head injury laboratory o the Uniersity o
Pennsylania, was instrumental in shutting those experiments down.
,lrank 8-9, see also Orlans, et al. Chapter 3,. Anyone who has seen
9

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-16.
Stephen lanson.


this disturbing ideo cannot help but recognize that lrank is right
about the power o images to conince. loweer, it does not yet
ollow that, as he suggests, urther raids and ideos would necessarily
be the best use o today`s animal actiists` time.
1hough there are legal blocks in the way o obtaining ideo and
images rom the inside o actory arms and laboratories, lrank notes
that these blocks are not impenetrable - it may be possible to obtain
some, though not all, desired ideo ootage ia surreptitious but legal
undercoer methods ,8,. As well, the diiculties which lrank
mentions with obtaining inormation can be connected to the ery
illegal actions he is promoting. le argues that many legal aenues to
obtaining inormation hae been closed down ,-8,. But illegal
actions such as breaking and entering tend to engender ear in those
who hae had their property entered. lear breeds suspicion, which
makes people more likely and willing to back measures restricting the
low o inormation. One must consider whether continued illegal
eorts will make it een more diicult to obtain uture inormation,
legally or otherwise, beore deending a gien raid. Also, and ery
importantly, the state o the world today is dierent than it was when
the Animal Liberation lront stole the ideos rom the Uniersity o
Pennsylania head injury lab. In the current political context o the
war on terror,` the general public in the US and other \estern
countries is arguably less likely to perceie illegal actions or a
political cause as permissible, especially those inoling iolence or
breaking and entering ,as distinguished rom, say, sit-ins at public
places,. 1he same actions by the ALl today might result in a ery
dierent set o consequences.
1his is related to a more systemic problem with illegal actions
by animal actiists. lrank notes that animal actiists hae a
credibility problem so serious that people will oten beliee that
indiidual recorded instances o abuse are exceptions, or een that
gruesome ootage is staged` by actiists ,10,. 1his seriously
intereres with the ability o animal actiists, liberationist or
otherwise, to achiee their goals, remoing this block must be a high
priority, since its being in place diminishes the alue o eerything
actiists do. 1he credibility problem, especially with regard to
medical experiments, comes in good part rom the generally positie
opinion people hae o scientists and medical researchers, which
makes it all the more important to keep the impressions people hae
o actiists rom being negatie. I the general public has to beliee
that someone is torturing baboons, and their choice is between
scientists and animal liberationists, people`s decisions will be aected
quite a lot by how the liberationists are perceied. I scientists, who
are portrayed and perceied by many as respected, highly educated
people working to adance medical knowledge and cure human
10

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-16.
Stephen lanson.


illnesses, are contrasted with a shadowy network` o thiees who
operate outside the law, destroy other people`s property, and won`t
een show their aces, it will be much more diicult to conince
people that the animal terrorists` are actually telling the truth. 1his
is one reason why open rescues,` where the rescuers show their
aces and accept arrest in order to make their case to the public, may
oten be more productie than the closed rescue tactics used by
masked members o the ALl ,Dais, 20-209,.
1he credibility gap makes denying the truth too easy. 1his is
particularly so since knowing what goes on in actory arms or in
scientiic research could cause people to hae to make liestyle
changes they won`t want to make, so i gien any semi-plausible
reason to discredit the source o disturbing ootage, it is all too easy
to do so. lor the reasons discussed earlier, many illegal actiities can
proide persons a reason to ignore the eidence in ront o their eyes.
1his is not a good reason, but again, it doesn`t matter whether
reasons are good i people will use them.
lrank correctly notes that more eidence obtained rom more
sources, will make rejecting the actiists` conclusions less reasonable
,10-11,. 1hough true, this may leae the credibility problem itsel
intact. I animal actiists are suering rom a credibility problem that
is already not largely based in reality ,what reasonable person could
honestly think that animal actiists are staging animal abuse In
order to preent what Lesser abuses than the ones they are staging,
then they must be exceptionally careul not to enable urther
unreasonable credibility problems. Gien the legal and social
reactions people hae to illegal animal actiism, especially o the
iolent ariety, aoiding illegal actiities unless absolutely necessary is
one important way to do this.
Consider that ew could ,or did, criticize the source o the
shocking inormation and images used by lenry Spira to help end
mutilating experiments on cats in the American Museum o Natural
listory in New \ork, much o which was obtained through lreedom
o Inormation Act requests ,Singer 54-5,. It is true that the Patriot
Act has made inormation much more diicult to obtain through
these sorts o means, but that what he did then could not be done
legally now is irreleant when what is being asked is how people
perceie a particular action.
1his holds animal actiists to a higher standard than what is
expected o proponents o many other positions. \hen a political
actiist digs up dirt on an opponent through illegal means, or
example, the means are usually ignored in aor o the acts
uncoered. Animal actiists, howeer, oten ind their message
obscured by their methods. Again, this is not air, but again, it
doesn`t matter. I being more scrupulous than others, and being
11

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-16.
Stephen lanson.


more scrupulous than one`s opponents, is what one must do to
conince others o the truth, then that is what one must do.
Considering Very Different Alternatives
But what i illegal actions are absolutely necessary 1hough
possible in some cases, legal routes to obtaining ootage are diicult
and may be eectiely blocked o by the law or deense against
surreptitious recordings. I there is no reasonably possible way to
legally obtain ootage rom a gien site that one seeks to expose - or,
more generally, i there is no reasonable legal way to attain some
other liberationist goal - could illegal actions be justiied then lere
is where seeking the best results can be ery demanding. I one
thinks that concerted eort, including some illegal actiity, could shut
down a particular experiment or acility ater months or years o
campaigning ,as was the case with the U. Penn head experiments,,
one still has to ask whether that is the best way to spend that time
and eort. One must also consider the possible results o ery
dierent actiities ,such as spending that same amount o time and
eort lealeting, speaking, working with a egan outreach plan, using
older material already aailable, or seeking to shut down a dierent
acility where ootage might be legally obtained, which would
perhaps do nothing to shut down that particular experiment but
which may hae a better eect on animals oerall.
One could argue that these alternate eorts will do nothing to
target a speciic place o abuse operating at the present time. Older
ootage or ootage rom dierent acilities will do little to expose that
particular acility. 1hus, the argument would continue, one would
hae to use illegal means in order to obtain ootage in order to shut
down this acility. 1his is entirely correct, but it misses the point o
the challenge. 1he goal is to achiee the best results oerall or all
sentient beings, not ,necessarily, shutting down a particular acility.
I illegal actions are required to shut down one acility, but those
illegal actions hae suicient negatie consequences to make that
action produce poorer results oerall than adopting a legal tactic
against a dierent target, then the burden o seeking the best results
require that, under those circumstances, one would hae to choose
those other actions. 1his would not help shut down that particular
acility but could do more good or animals and humans as a whole.
Acting on such a belie is not easy to do. \hen one knows o a
particular gruesome occurrence, it is natural to want to stop it, een
by whateer means necessary. But achieing the ultimate goal is what
matters most, not short-term successes. Illegal actions may be the
best way to expose a particular site, but now what a true utilitarian
must ask is whether exposing the truth at this gien site is what
promotes the most good. Images are exceedingly good at showing
12

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-16.
Stephen lanson.


people the truth, but they need not be new images in many cases.
lilms such as Meet your Meat`, 1he \itness`, A Cow at My
1able`, and Unnecessary luss` are eectie tools that are already in
existence, perhaps showing these images to people - especially
persons who`e not yet seen any such ootage - would promote as
much good as the illegally obtained images, but without the risks o
illegally obtaining them. Many people hae no idea what goes on in
creating ur and meat, or in experimental laboratories, or these
people, old eidence can be as eye-opening as new eidence. As a
proessor, I routinely encounter students who, ater no more than an
initial introduction to animal ethics or the conditions on actory
arms or the alternaties to animal experimentation, ask why they`d
neer heard o any o this beore. As lrank notes, it oten takes
nothing more than the presentation o the acts or many people to
radically change their behaior ,which is perhaps why people hae
not been exposed to any o those acts beore, ,4-6,. So one must
not only ask whether the images one seeks can be gained by legal
means, but also whether one`s time is most proitably spent obtaining
those images at all.
One might respond that using only older ootage could allow
some persons to reply, 1hat`s old ootage, things aren`t like that any
more.` 1here are three replies to this criticism. lirst, one need not
use only older ootage to stay within the law. As noted by lrank,
some legal methods o obtaining new ootage are still aailable ,8,.
Second, the importance o this critique is compounded by the
credibility problem, i that problem were lessened, the reply could
simply be gien that things are still much the same, which can be
shown by the non-pictorial data legally aailable in, or example,
agricultural journals. 1he it`s not like that any more` critique is
easily rebutted, but whether the rebuttal is belieed depends on the
credibility o the actiists rebutting it.
linally, i a respondent continues to hold, despite the aboe
approaches, that things are better now, a utilitarian may simply be
required to ignore that person. I the only way to conince such a
person would be to obtain illegal ootage, then it may not be worth it
to conince this person. 1he harms caused by obtaining illegal
ootage may outweigh the beneit o conincing those persons so
reticent that they cannot be coninced by the methods aboe,
especially since one o the harms ,aggraating the credibility problem,
may enable een more people to beliee that things aren`t really like
that`.
Recall that the long-term goal is animal liberation, and that
attaining this goal is the only way illegal actions could be justiied in
the irst place. One eectie way to achiee signiicant liberation
would be to get most people to seek it. Gien that people oten can
13

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-16.
Stephen lanson.


be persuaded to see how animals ought not be used and abused or
their triial desires simply by showing them, or example, how
modern agribusiness works, many people can be started on the path
towards seeking liberation by being shown eidence that is already
aailable. Aiming towards that may be the most proitable action an
actiist can take.
O course, this oersimpliies. New projects and new images
do bring in and inspire new conerts and new actiists, which is also
good. I hae no doubt that illegal undercoer work can be ery
eectie at conincing people o the shocking treatment o animals
in modern agriculture and science, numerous examples o this exist
,Best and Nocella, Dais, lrank, Orlans, et al,. Violent and
threatening acts may be quite eectie, or example, in rightening
people away rom selling foie gra. ,Dawn, 218-219,. A deense o
such actions, howeer, would hae to do more than just note that
they were eectie, it would hae to weigh how eectie those
actions were, including all o their negatie side-eects, against how
eectie other actions, including legal ones with ewer negatie side-
eects, might be.
It is possible that one could answer this challenge and conclude
that, in a particular case, illegal actiity could be reasonably expected
to produce the most good. Certain actions are more likely to be
justiiable than others: non-iolent oer iolent actions, rescue oer
destruction, and so on. Len damaging behaior can be done in
dierent ways that will hae dierent consequences: as \icklund
notes, spray-painting ur stores with, lur is dead and you`re next`
will hae a rather dierent impact in the public than spray-painting,
Please go egan` ,\icklund 249,. lor these reasons, the ,illegally,
well-documented and concisely deended open rescues o hens rom
battery cages perormed by Compassion oer Killing and described
by Dais might be more productie than closed rescues, especially i
they are well-receied by the public and can lead to oerall changes in
laying hens` conditions ,Dais 208-210,. Utilitarianism could
potentially authorize such actions, though they inoled breaking and
entering, but one must consider careully the rather sti challenges o
worsening credibility, the issue o numbers o animals, and een
alternatie options that leae one`s desired target alone, beore such
an act would be justiied. 1he challenge or the utilitarian actiist is
to ensure that any illegal actions considered, with all their potential
negatie repercussions, will truly produce the most good.



1
I am indebted to Stee Best and Matthew Calarco or their helpul adice on
improing this essay.

14

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-16.
Stephen lanson.



2
Act utilitarianism` is dierentiated rom rule utilitarianism`, which holds that
we ought to deise a set o rules that, i we all ollowed them, would produce the
most good. No matter what the details o a gien case, a rule-utilitarian would hold
that it is correct to ollow those rules, een i in an extraordinary case breaking the
rules would produce the most good. Peter Singer is generally understood to be an
act-utilitarian, Richard Brandt is a rule utilitarian. Many ,though not all, utilitarians
recognize that pain and pleasure are mental states that can apply to many animals as
well as humans, and thus that any calculus o consequences must include all
sentient beings, this can be credited to Jeremy Bentham`s inclusion in 189, in his
vtroavctiov to tbe Privcite. of Morat. ava egi.tatiov, the claim that capacity or
suering was the criterion or moral standing, instead o rational ability. ,Chapter
1,. lor a more complete discussion o utilitarianism and animal ethics, see Singer,
Peter. .vivat iberatiov. New \ork: Lcco press. 2002, or Bart Gruzalski`s 1he
Case Against Raising and Killing Animals or lood,` in .vivat Rigbt. ava vvav
Obtigatiov., 2
nd
ed., 1om Regan and Peter Singer, eds. Lngelwood Clis, NJ.
Prentice lall, Inc. 1989. pp. 16-191. lor a more indepth discussion o animal
sentience, see DeGrazia, Daid. 1a/ivg .vivat. eriov.t,: Mevtat ife ava Morat
tatv.. New \ork: Cambridge Uniersity Press. 1996. lor a more complete
discussion o the dierent ersions o utilitarianism in general, see Beauchamp,
1om L. Pbito.obicat tbic.: .v vtroavctiov to Morat Pbito.ob,, 3rd ed. McGraw-lill,
Inc., 2001.

3
1hough not all, deoted rights theorists ,such as, or example, 1om Regan, may
care more about whether rights are iolated than whether their actions hae the
best long term consequences or animals. But I beliee that most actiists seek
primarily to produce good results, and to those persons the arguments herein
should be releant.

4
1his would include een paciist illegal actions like a sit-in and passie resistance,
although the arguments in Media Coerage` and 1he Credibility Problem` make
it clear that these actions would be much easier to justiy than more destructie
actions. I do not include in this argument legal direct actions such as boycotts and
protests. 1hough the eectieness o these actions must also be careully
calculated, most o the concerns I raise herein would not apply to them. In
principle, I am also addressing more iolent actions such as murder as well, though
I know o no animal actiist who has actually suggested such a strategy. 1his is a
airly common critique o act-utilitarian approaches, though: any action can, in
principle, be justiied. So, i murdering a number o breeders o animals used or
destructie experiments could produce the most good, act-utilitarianism could
allow it. It should be clear rom the discussion that ollows below that I beliee it
would not be the case in any set o circumstances we are likely to encounter that
such murders would actually produce the most good, and so this is a merely
hypothetical problem or a utilitarian, not an actual one. Murder would cause all
the problems mentioned in this work, and much more so than the illegal actions
actually discussed, consequently it is exceedingly unlikely that that will eer be the
option which will produce the most good. A similar objection inoling slaery
instead o murder is addressed by R.M. lare in \hat is \rong with Slaery` in
.tiea tbic., Peter Singer, ed. New \ork: Oxord Uniersity Press. 1986. pp. 165-
184, and he discusses a general problem with such objections briely but clearly in
lare, R.M. Lthical 1heory and Utilitarianism.` in |tititariavi.v ava e,ova,
Amartya Sen and Bernard \illiams, eds. New \ork: Cambridge Uniersity Press.
1982. pp. 23-38.

15

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-16.
Stephen lanson.



5
One might also note that eliminating foie gra. and eal does not radically change
most persons` diets. Again, what one targets can aect persons` reactions to it.

6
1he act o and problems with corporate media ownership and manipulation are
described at, among other sources, www.reepress.net and www.outoxed.org.

References

Best, Steen and Anthony J. Nocella, II eds. Behind the Mask: Uncoering the
Animal Liberation lront.` 1errori.t. or reeaov igbter.. Reftectiov. ov tbe iberatiov of
.vivat.. New \ork, N\: Lantern Press. 2002: 9-63.

Dais, Karen. Open Rescues: Putting a lace on the Rescuers and the Rescued.`
1errori.t. or reeaov igbter.. Reftectiov. ov tbe iberatiov of .vivat.. Steen Best and
Anthony J. Nocella II, eds. New \ork, N\: Lantern Press. 2002: 202-212.

Dawn, Karen. lrom the lront Line to the lront Page - An Analysis o ALl
Media Coerage.` 1errori.t. or reeaov igbter.. Reftectiov. ov tbe iberatiov of .vivat..
Steen Best and Anthony J. Nocella II, eds. New \ork, N\: Lantern Press. 2002:
213-228.

lrank, Joshua. 1he Role o Radical Animal Actiists as Inormation Proiders to
Consumers.` Cevter ov .vivat iberatiov .ffair. .vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic,
]ovrvat, Volume 2, No. 1, 2004: 1-13. http:,,www.cala-
online.org,Journal,Issue2,1he_Role_o_Radical_Animal_Actiists.htm

Orlans, l. Barbara, et al. 1be vvav |.e of .vivat.: Ca.e tvaie. iv tbicat Cboice.
New \ork, N\: Oxord Uniersity Press. 1998.

Regan, 1om. low to Justiy Violence.` 1errori.t. or reeaov igbter.. Reftectiov. ov
tbe iberatiov of .vivat.. Steen Best and Anthony J. Nocella II, eds. New \ork,
N\: Lantern Press. 2002: 231-236.

Singer, Peter. tbic. ivto .ctiov: evr, ira ava tbe .vivat Rigbt. Morevevt. Lanham,
MD: Rowman and Littleield Publishers, Inc. 1998.

United States Lconomic Research Serice. Department o Agriculture. Brieing
Room: logs.` Sept 14, 2004. http:,,www.ers.usda.go,brieing,hogs, .

United States Lconomic Research Serice. Department o Agriculture. Brieing
Room: Cattle: Background.`
http:,,www.ers.usda.go,brieing,cattle,Background.htm ,citing 199 data,.

United States Lconomic Research Serice. Department o Agriculture. Brieing
Room: Poultry and eggs: Background.`
http:,,www.ers.usda.go,brieing,poultry,background.htm .

\icklund, lreeman. Direct Action: Progress, Peril, or Both` ,2002, Rpt. in
1errori.t. or reeaov igbter.. Reftectiov. ov tbe iberatiov of .vivat.. Steen Best and
Anthony J. Nocella II, eds. New \ork, N\: Lantern Press. 2004: 23-251.



16

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-16.
Stephen lanson.