"Because animals are property, we consider as "humane treatment" that we would regard as torture if it were inflicted on humans"

Gary L. Francione's quote challenges the ethical structures typically applied to the treatment of animals versus humans. At its core, the declaration interrogates how social norms and legal structures distinguish between human beings and animals, mostly due to the classification of animals as home. This dichotomy allows for a set of requirements that accept certain habits and treatments towards animals that would be categorized as cruelty or torture if used to people.

Francione explains an ethical disparity wherein the ownership status of animals grants people the latitude to subject them to conditions deemed appropriate under a guise of "humane treatment". These conditions are often far from what would be allowable for human beings, successfully lowering the limit for what is thought about ethical treatment. For example, the confinement, massacre, and usage of animals in different markets under managed requirements are accepted practices, even though likewise limiting or harmful conditions would provoke public outrage if experienced by people.

By labeling animals as residential or commercial property, society gives precedence to human interests, justifying exploitative practices while preserving a perception of moral acceptability through terms like "humane treatment". The term itself is paradoxical-- implying generosity or empathy-- yet it typically includes practices that, in a human context, would breach fundamental rights or freedoms. Francione's argument suggests that the principle of humane treatment is diluted by the residential or commercial property status of animals, enabling people to condone actions that would otherwise be morally remiss.

Eventually, Francione welcomes a re-examination of ethical norms, urging a shift in understanding that recognizes animals as sentient beings deserving of rights and factors to consider comparable to human beings. The quote is a call to concern not only the ethical structures that assist human-animal relationships but likewise the legal and social structures that make it possible for these inconsistencies. It challenges readers to reconsider how gentle treatment needs to be defined and used generally, regardless of species.