Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    04 Meat

    Uploaded by

    Chan Hufflepuff
    This document provides an overview of arguments for and against eating meat from an ethics perspective. It discusses the idea that it is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to animals. It also examines utilitarian arguments that vegetarianism may maximize overall well-being by reducing animal suffering, improving human health and the environment. Objections to these positions are considered, such as whether animals have rights, where to draw the line between sentient and non-sentient life, and whether individuals have a duty to avoid eating meat. The document analyzes these complex issues without advocating for any definitive conclusion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    04 Meat

    Uploaded by

    Chan Hufflepuff
    8 views29 pages
    This document provides an overview of arguments for and against eating meat from an ethics perspective. It discusses the idea that it is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to animals. It also examines utilitarian arguments that vegetarianism may maximize overall well-being by reducing animal suffering, improving human health and the environment. Objections to these positions are considered, such as whether animals have rights, where to draw the line between sentient and non-sentient life, and whether individuals have a duty to avoid eating meat. The document analyzes these complex issues without advocating for any definitive conclusion.

    Original Title

    04-meat

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document provides an overview of arguments for and against eating meat from an ethics perspective. It discusses the idea that it is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to animals. It also examines utilitarian arguments that vegetarianism may maximize overall well-being by reducing animal suffering, improving human health and the environment. Objections to these positions are considered, such as whether animals have rights, where to draw the line between sentient and non-sentient life, and whether individuals have a duty to avoid eating meat. The document analyzes these complex issues without advocating for any definitive conclusion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    8 views29 pages

    04 Meat

    Uploaded by

    Chan Hufflepuff
    This document provides an overview of arguments for and against eating meat from an ethics perspective. It discusses the idea that it is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to animals. It also examines utilitarian arguments that vegetarianism may maximize overall well-being by reducing animal suffering, improving human health and the environment. Objections to these positions are considered, such as whether animals have rights, where to draw the line between sentient and non-sentient life, and whether individuals have a duty to avoid eating meat. The document analyzes these complex issues without advocating for any definitive conclusion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 29

    CCHU9005 Food and Values

    L4 – Eating meat (2)

    Joe Y. F. Lau
    Philosophy Department
    HKU 2024
    REMINDERS
    Watch video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko

    Problem set #1 due 9 Feb.


    WHERE WE ARE
    Wrong to cause suffering without a good reason.
    Animal farming causes terrible suffering.
    Most arguments for eating meat are weak.

    What about arguments against eating meat?


    “SANCTITY OF LIFE”
    ARGUMENT
    1. Life is sacred.
    2. If life is sacred,
    then we should not eat animals.
    3. So, we should not eat animals.

    But plants are also living things.


    Fruitarians: Yes, we should not eat plants
    too.
    ONLY SENTIENT LIFE
    CAN SUFFER
    Only conscious creatures experience pain & suffering.
    Requires nervous system, sensory receptors.
    Where to draw the line? Sharp or matter of degree?
    Mammals, birds, fish (probably), insects (?),
    nematodes (?), plants (unlikely), bacteria.
    All sentient life is sacred?
    Killing sentient life is not always wrong.
    Consider: abortion, self-defence, pest control.
    So how should we decide?
    THE TROLLEY PROBLEM

    Do nothing
    UTILITARIANISM
    1748-1832
    A theory about what is morally right to do.
    Defended by Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill.
    A form of cost-benefit analysis.
    Utility = net balance of happiness over pain
    Utilitarianism: The right action in any situation is to
    choose the option that will bring the highest utility.
    Example: water chlorination.
    UCL
    SINGER’S UTILITARIAN ARGUMENT FOR VEGETARIANISM

    1. The right thing to do is to maximize


    utility.
    2. Vegetarianism will maximize utility.
    3. So, vegetarianism is the right thing to do.
    4. So, we should give up animal farming.

    1975
    COMMENT #1: IS UTILITARIANISM
    CORRECT?
    Objection: Utilitarianism ignores rights.
    - Not OK to violate rights to maximize utility.
    - Example: Organ-transplant through murder.
    - Example: Discrimination against the minority.
    Replies:
    - Exploitation bad for society in the long run.
    - A system of legal rights might maximize utility.
    - Irrelevant if animals have no rights.
    COMMENT #2: DOES VEGETARIANISM
    MAXIMIZE UTILITY?
    Positive utility Negative utility
    Huge reduction of animal suffering Some unemployment
    Better health for humans Less eating pleasure
    Fewer epidemics
    Better environment
    COMPLICATIONS IN
    CALCULATION
    Difficult comparison: animal pain vs human gustatory pleasure / culinary culture
    Some grazing land might be unsuitable for crops.
    Farm animals can provide income and nutrition for poor farming communities.
    But it seems plausible that eating less meat will bring more utility.
    Better for animal welfare, human health, and the environment.
    Agree: vegetarianism >> industrial animal farming
    But: vegetarianism >> reducitarianism?
    = Reducing (not eliminating) meat & dairy consumption.
    WHAT ABOUT “HAPPY” MEAT?
    Intensive animal farming is very bad.
    But what if we raise and kill animals humanely?
    “Cruelty-free”, “animal friendly” farming.
    The animals will produce lots of positive utility.
    Maybe we ought to eat meat?
    Jeff McMahan: “benign carnivorism”
    Problem 1: Unrealistic given the demand for meat.
    Problem 2: Deceptive advertising, eg. “free range”.
    DO ANIMALS HAVE RIGHTS?
    Most people would reject “benign cannibalism”.
    Many vegetarians reject utilitarianism.
    Tom Regan
    - People and animals have rights.
    - They are not instruments to promote utility.
    - Wrong to eat animals even if they live a happy life.
    Crows can think

    WHY ANIMAL
    and use tools to
    solve problems

    RIGHTS?
    Animals have complex minds.
    - Consciousness, feelings, reasoning.
    They are “subjects of a life”.
    - They possess “inherent value”.
    - Not purely an instrument.
    We have a duty to respect them.
    They have the right to life.
    So, we should not eat them.
    OBJECTION #1
    The duty to respect might not entail
    that animals have the right to life.
    Maybe it only means we should kill
    animals humanely and not waste food.
    But factory farming might fail this test.
    TWO MORE OBJECTIONS
    Objection #2: If animals have rights, we cannot use them to conduct
    medical research. Many people will die.
    Replies: (1) Utility of animal experiments exaggerated.
    (2) It is unfortunate but why treat humans differently?
    Objection #3: If animals have rights, we should stop tigers and lions
    eating other animals. But this is crazy.
    Reply: Not crazy. Suffering is bad and should be avoided. But we need
    to consider resource allocation and ecological consequences.
    HUMAN RIGHTS > ANIMAL
    RIGHTS?
    Not all rights are applicable to animals, eg. religion.
    Maybe animals have the right to humane treatment.
    But no right to rescue, no right to life.
    Thought experiment: If we can save only either a
    human or an animal in a fire, who should we save?
    Reply:
    - In this example, both rights and utility are relevant.
    - Saving Einstein instead of an ordinary person does
    not mean that Einstein has more rights or that the
    other person has none.
    AGAINST UNEQUAL
    BASIC RIGHTS
    Regan: It is dangerous to regard animal rights
    as less important than human rights.
    This might mean:
    - Smart and strong people have more rights.
    - Leads to sexism, racism, slavery, genocide.
    - Superhumans will have more rights.
    THE THRESHOLD REPLY TO REGAN
    Can we avoid the dangerous consequences if having rights depends on reaching a
    threshold mental capacity (eg. IQ)?
    Animals above the threshold all have the same value, the same right to life. But it is
    morally acceptable to eat anything below the threshold.

    Intrinsic
    threshold
    value can eat cannot eat

    IQ
    plants most animals gorillas humans superman
    PROBLEM WITH THE THRESHOLD
    THEORY
    Not all humans have the same mental capacity, eg. babies.
    No threshold can include all human beings and exclude other animals.
    Reply #1: Babies belong to the human species.
    Why focus on species and not individuals? Question-begging.
    Reply #2: Babies have the potential to develop. But:
    (1) Not all babies have this potential.
    (2) Same for people with incurable Alzheimer’s.
    (3) Animals can have the potential too with the right technology.
    ARGUMENT
    FROM ANALOGY

    Animals are like babies.


    It is wrong to eat babies.
    So, it is wrong to eat animals.

    (or replace with cats & dogs)


    WHAT IS JUSTICE?
    Aristotle: “Treating like cases alike”
    X discrimination = treating people differently based
    on X without good reason.
    Examples: sexism, racism.
    Singer: We should also reject speciesism.
    Physical & physiological differences shouldn’t
    matter.
    (as far as being used as food is concerned)
    Psychological features: animals overlap with humans.
    EVOLUTION &
    MORALITY
    Not easy to reject argument from analogy.
    - But most people don’t want to accept it.
    - Why?
    Perhaps evolution gives us the instinct to
    value babies more.
    - Helps our species reproduce and survive.
    - But instincts can be wrong.
    - They can also be overridden.
    DUTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
    CONSUMER
    Maybe the current system of industrial animal farming is wrong.
    But does it follow that it is wrong for me to eat meat?

     I am not responsible for the system.


     Most people still eat meat.
     I did not kill the animal.
     My decision has no effect on the system.
    SOME RESPONSES
    Little effect ≠ no effect (on other people, companies)
    Social change relies on individual action.
    Compare: slavery, gender equality.
    Progress has been made:
    - More stringent animal welfare laws.
    - Better practices (gestation crates, antibiotics).
    - More consumer awareness.
    - Vegetarianism becoming more mainstream.
    THINS WE CAN DO
    1. Give up the bad arguments for eating meat.
    2. Learn more and share your knowledge.
    3. Reduce meat consumption.
    4. Engage in social activism.
    5. Avoid moral grandstanding: showing off, shaming
    others.
    IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT
    CONSEQUENCES
    We often admire people who stand by their beliefs, even when they know
    they cannot win. Moral integrity is an important value.
    If we agree that something is wrong, shouldn’t we limit our participation,
    even if our actions have little effect?

    You can resolve to live your life with


    integrity. Let your credo be this: Let
    the lie come into the world, let it even
    triumph. But not through me.
    - Famous Russian writer & dissident,
    Alexander Solzhenitsyn
    Q&A

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy