I've become a bit of an insomniac, so instead of sleeping I'm thinking about ethics. More specifically, about dietary ethics. Even more specifically, about my own "free-rangism" and its philosophical underpinnings. I've eaten nothing but free range meat, and no pork, since last March, and while I had a very clear understanding of my reasons for it then, the argument's gotten a little fuzzy. So I thought I'd try to construct it semiformally and post it. I'd also like to hear your thoughts on it, of course. Feel free to mock and sneer and throw jabs at Singer if you like.
The argument runs something like this:
1. It is prima facie immoral (or wrong or unethical or something, the point is it's bad) to inflict intense and extended suffering on any animal.
2. Consuming meat produced by "meat factories" and certain other forms of inudstrialized agriculture causes animals to suffer intensely and for extended periods of time.
3. Therefore, it is prima facie immoral to comsume meat produced by "meat factories" and certain other forms of industrialized agriculture.
4. One derives only nutritional, economic and aesthetic benefits from one's food choices.
5. In most cases, one could live healthily and cheaply by consuming other foods instead of said meat.
6. By (4) and (5), in most cases, the only benefit one receives from said meat and not other foods is an aesthetic benefit.
7. An aesthetic benefit is not a sufficient reason to override the prima facie immorality of an action.
8. Therefore, in most cases it is immoral to consume meat produced by "meat factories" and certain other forms of industrialized agriculture.
I realize that this is a pretty ugly argument, but it is almost 2:30 AM and I am not as coherent as I usually am. Before I post this, I'd like to point a few things out about the argument. First, it does not assume that animals other than humans have a right to life, even a prima facie one (I don't think they have one). It only assumes that they have a prima facie right to not suffer. It also asserts only that aesthetic benefits cannot outweigh this right, but it leaves the possibility of anything else being able to do so. For instance, perhaps it is ethical to torture animals in order to prevent some small amount of human suffering. I am fairly certain, however, that it is not ethical to torture an animal so that I can enjoy a tasty burger.
Please, destroy this argument. Tear it to shreds. I'll be happy, even eager, to see the error of my ways.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Some quick thoughts from a fellow insomniac:
1) If you had stopped at (3), you would've had me. What are 4, 5, and 6 supposed to establish?
2) I think there's definitely an economic reason to eat factory-farmed meat: it's generally cheaper. You might go on to claim that since factory farms produce more meat per hectare than free range, we can feed more people for less with factory farms.. thus reducing world hunger? Haha.. I'll come back to this.
I guess i wanted to have a stronger conclusion than that it is prima facie immoral to eat meat factory meat. The rest is les of an argument than an assertion, though. And yes, meat factory meat is cheaper than free range meat, but not cheaper than vegetarian alternatives to meat. It is also more efficient, from what I've read and heard, to produce vegetables than meat.
Post a Comment