Reddit reviews Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights

Hey - glad you're interested in the philosophy behind Veganism. The literature is truly thought-provoking, and to answer one of your later questions, it was precisely what spurred my decision to go vegan. After reading Paola Cavalieri's 'The Animal Question' (which is informed by Singer's work) I realized that what morality required was veganism and an end to the exploitation of animals. I personally have not read much Francione, however I am much more familiar with other authors, such as the aforementioned Cavalieri, as well as Garner, Donaldson & Kymlicka, and have a passing grasp on Singer, Ragan, and Nussbaum. So here are my two cents, you may or may not find this helpful!

Veganism is radical. Meat consumption and use of animal products in every aspect of our daily life is ubiquitous; so much of human culture incorporates animal exploitation in some way or another. Viewed in this light going vegan is an extremely radical departure from human history and the status quo - it is understandable to be intimidated by this fact. With that being said, once you make the change, it really stops becoming so difficult. Learning to cook new recipes and incorporating new items into your repertoire is exciting and will make you a better cook, not mention that you'll feel amazing. I've been vegan for about a year now, and avoiding animal products, in food or in commercial products, is becoming more and more unconscious as time passes. I rarely feel like I am abstaining from anything or depriving myself of anything. Also this subreddit is great if you ever get in a rut with motivation or commitement, or you just want a new recipe to try out.

Regarding your question about the right to life of sentient beings and our obligations to them - I'm not sure precisely what Francione's view is, but the abolitionist argument is somewhere along the lines of: provided you accept the inviolability of human rights (right to life, right to not suffer, etc), and provided you can't find any morally relevant distinctions between humans and non-human animals, then there is no justification for the differential treatment of humans and non-human animals when it comes to said rights. Abolitionists claim there are no morally relevant distinctions; they reject species membership (imagine that membership to a specific race or gender was enough to justify differential treatment b/w individuals), rationality (we accord rights to non-rational humans e.g. infants, cognitively impaired humans; in the literature this is referred to as The Argument From Marginal Cases), and intrinsic value or natural right (these are metaphysical claims w/ arbitrary justification) as possible justifications. I would like to note this is a painfully brief survey of the abolitionist position, and I assure you in the animal rights literature the examples and arguments I have mentioned are infinitely more fleshed out.

Peter Singer is a utilitarian/consequentialist - which means that whether an act is deemed morally good or bad depends solely on the consequences. So therefore no act is intrinsically bad - on Singer's view, anything can theoretically be permissible provided the ends justify the means. This allows that non-human animals, or even humans, can be used instrumentally provided the consequences justify it.

Regarding whether we have an obligation to protect the right to life of animals - this question is only somewhat addressed in traditional accounts of animal rights theory. They acknowledge we have a duty protect animals within our care and not to harm animals generally, but don't really progress any further. If you're interested in this topic, I would direct you to Donaldson & Kymlicka's Zoopolis, which is an endlessly insightful and novel approach to the animal rights question, and it moves forward where a lot of animal rights theory falls short. The arguments in the book are couched in a moral and political philosophy framework, whereas often animal rights theories stay within the boundary of moral philosophy and applied ethics.

I just realized I wrote a WALL of text, sorry! What can I say, I'm procrastinating on writing a paper, and I guess this isn't the least productive thing I could be doing. Hope this was somewhat helpful :)

Edit 1: missing words and typos.