There are few writers in animal ethics who explicitly endorse an abolitionist agenda, i.e. who claim that most or all human uses of nonhuman animals need to be abolished for ethical reasons. I will argue that this is partly because several authors do not properly follow through their own principles or do not sufficiently take into account relevant empirical facts. So the idea is that several important and much-debated positions in animal ethics do in fact have abolitionist implications, contrary to what their representatives say. I will try to show this for Singer`s utilitarianism, Nussbaum`s capability approach, Korsgaard`s Kantian account, and certain varieties of virtue and care ethics.