Vegetarianism
Essay Preview: Vegetarianism
Report this essay
Is vegetarianism defensible on consequentialist grounds, on animal rights grounds, or not at all?
Before I can begin to discuss whether vegetarianism is defensible on consequentialist grounds, on animal rights grounds, or not at all; I must first explain what vegetarianism is.
Vegetarianism is Ðthe practice of not consuming meat, with or without the use of other animal derivatives, such as dairy products or eggs. Some people may also choose to refrain from wearing clothing derived from animals, such as suede or leather or fur. There are many reasons why people choose to be a vegetarian. These include religious, ethical and environmental reasons and also health concerns. In this essay I am concerned with the ethical reasons behind peoples choice to become a vegetarian
Now I have defined vegetarianism, I can move on to discuss the first argument for vegetarianism. This is the argument based on consequentialist grounds. Consequentialism is a branch of utilitarianism. A consequentialist theory holds that Ðthe consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action. Put simply an action is only morally right if it produces good consequences.
Peter Singer put forward the consequentialist argument for vegetarianism; the argument was built upon the belief that factory farming is wrong. In many developed countries, such as the United Kingdom there has been a recent increase in vegetarianism which appears to be linked to the spread of factory farms. Many people believe the treatment of animals in such farms and the use of animals as a commodity is wrong and the only way to prevent such a practice is to abstain from meat as a whole, as it is the demand for meat that keeps these factory farms in business.
Singers argument was based on the principle of equal consideration of interests. The vast majority of the adherents of this principle are consequentialists. The principle means that Ðwe give equal weight in our moral deliberations to the like interests of all those affected by our actions. Take for example a situation where only person A and person B are to be affected by an action. If person A is likely to lose more than person B is to gain then the action should not be carried out. When using the principle of equal consideration of interests in the case of vegetarianism, Singer argues that the suffering of animals reared for food in a factory farm set against the relatively trivial pleasures of the taste of the meat eaten shows that the practice of eating meat is wrong.
However Singers argument for vegetarianism does not concern the killing of animals. Nor does his position require abstentation from all meat;for example, Singers consequentialist stand point allows the eating of pheasant that has been run overand is already dead. Singer admits that his argument is not absolutist but it is wholly consequentialist.. He also admits that vegetarianism is a tactic, but a tactic needed to stop factory farming.
Shortly after Singer proposed his argument, Tom Regan presented a case for vegetarianism based on animal rights. Unlike Singer, Regan argued that animals have a right to life. He rejects utilitarianism on the grounds that it would justify killing severely defective humans in some circumstances, and as this is wrong it must hold that all humans have a right to life. They have the right to life because they have goals, interests and purposes which facilitate intrinsically valuable experiences; but the same applies to the majority of animals and therefore they surely have the same right to life. With this right to life, is the right not to suffer for no good reason.
However Regan adds that rights can be rightly overidden, but only if a great deal of good is down or a great evil averted. For example, if a communities way of life is fishing, fishing would not have to be subverted for the principle of the right to life. Regan justifies conditional vegetarianism; that it is only right to eat meat in morally exceptional circumstances.
Singer replies to Regan that not all humans have the right to life. He forms the idea of persons,