Ethics and Animal Agriculture: Us and Them

1. Introduction

Note: these two concepts are the same: ethics = morality; moral = ethical; unethical=immoral, etc.

Two important questions for thinking about ethics:

What do you mean? (definitions; clarification)
Why think that? (Reasons, arguments).

Our two questions:

Are people who in our culture* raise and kill animals so they can be eaten doing something wrong?
Are consumers our culture* who buy and/or eat such products doing something wrong?

* Not people at the north pole, not starving people, not people with literally no options, etc. Whatabout them????

A useful concept: an action being prima facie wrong = typically wrong; wrong unless there's some unique, extreme circumstances that justify doing the action.

Question: what do I or we mean by wrong?

NOT illegal . . because ...
NOT "what most people disapprove of or have negative feelings about" . . because ...
NOT "what I approve of or have negative feelings about" . . because ...
NOT "what God or some religious text disapproves of . ." . . because ...
NOT "what anyone thinks or believes is wrong . . " because ...

Activity 1: with that in mind, make a short list of actions that you think most people think are pretty obviously wrong!

Activity 2: what makes these actions wrong? Why are they wrong?

2. Ethical Theories

Observation: we can give reasons for our views; we can give arguments; we can learn how to better evaluate reasons and arguments, if we want. We can do better than "that's just your opinion!" "that's subjective!" "that's just how you feel!" and the like.

Some basic ethical concepts:

wrong; right
not wrong: morally permissible: "OK to do."
Wrong to not do (morally obligatory: an obligation: "gotta do!").

Concepts related here: rights; justice.

Some influential ethical theories:

utilitarianism or consequentialism:

we are morally obligated to produce the best overall, net consequences for all affected by our actions: the most pleasure, happiness, desire-satisfaction, well-being, etc.

Kant's ethics:

we are morally obligated to treat all rational beings as "ends in themselves" never as "mere means"; we must follow rules we'd be willing to follow;

update: we must treat all sentient beings as ends in themselves: Regan, Korsgaard, others.

John Rawls' Theory of Justice:

the "veil of ignorance": what's morally permissible is what we'd agree to do, if we didn't know who we were: if we didn't have any information about ourselves to make a self-serving decision, such as our race, sex, gender, SES, intelligence, etc. Can include species too! (Mark Rowlands).

Note: these theories all point to, considered in itself, the moral irrelevance of species: whether a being can be affected badly or not, treated as a thing or not, and we try to see things from that being's perspective does not depend on its species. Thus, speciesism.

3. Theories of Animal Ethics

These theories in some ways applied or extended to animals.

Peter Singer's Animal Liberation:

Tom Regan's The Case for Animal Rights:

4. These many theories (ethical theories and theories of animal ethics) applied to our initial questions:

Are people who in our culture* raise and kill animals so they can be eaten doing something wrong?
Are consumers our culture* who buy and/or eat such products doing something wrong?

Answers???

Also, arguments from Elwood's Organic Dog Meat:

Elwood's is doing wrong.
If Elwood's is doing wrong, then other farms and slaughterhouses are doing wrong.
Therefore, other farms and slaughterhouses are doing wrong.

Note: in academic philosophy, for better or worse, one of the main controversies is this:

when people are doing wrong, when are obligated to not financially or symbolically support them, when it is very unclear that our individual lack of support will cause the problem to get better?

5. Objections!

There are many objections here! Are they any good? (Or are they instances of "confirmation bias" and "motivated reasoning"?)

An argument:

Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
So Socrates is mortal.

An argument pattern called a simple syllogism:

S is A.
All A's are B's.
So S is a B.

General concerns about arguments: do the premises lead to the conclusion? Are the premises true? Are there good reasons to think the premises are true? Are there any good reasons to think any premises are false?

Apply this; 4 (well, 3) N's:

Eating meat is "nice," it produces pleasure, so it's not wrong.
Eating meat is "normal," so it's not wrong.
Eating meat is "natural," so it's not wrong.

As simple syllogisms:

Eating meat is "nice," it produces pleasure; all actions that produce pleasure are not wrong; so it's not wrong.
Eating meat is "normal"; all actions that are normal are not wrong, so it's not wrong.
Eating meat is "natural"; all 'natural' actions are not wrong, so it's not wrong.

Are there counterexamples to these red premises?

A few more:

Animals eat other animals (and that's not wrong); all actions that animals do are not wrong for us to do, so it's not wrong for us to eat meat.
Animals aren't rational or smart; all beings that are not rational or smart are not wrong for us to eat; so it's not wrong for us to eat meat.
It is (nutritionally) necessary for us to eat meat; all actions required to meet our needs for nutritional are not wrong; so it's not wrong for us to eat meat.

Some more abstract arguments:

Animals aren't the "kind" of beings that are "moral agents"; only beings that are the "kind" of being that are moral agents are usually wrong to kill or harm; so animals aren't usually wrong to kill or harm.

Question about premise 2: embryos? Permanently comatose individuals? What "kind" is this?? Why is anyone supposed to accept this argument?

Animals aren't "normally" rational beings; only beings that are "normally" rational beings are usually wrong to kill or harm; so animals aren't usually wrong to kill or harm.

Question about premise 2: embryos? Permanently comatose individuals? If X is "normally" Y does not mean that X should be treated as if X is a Y. Finally, why is anyone supposed to accept this argument?

There are many, many more objections! What are the best? What are worth discussing? What else?

("Food deserts" is a common concern: one response here involves an "ought implies can" principle: if someone can't do something, then it's not the case that they ought to do it: so people who can't do anything about these issues are not obligated to do anything about them).

In sum: ethics concerns what we have the most reason to believe--and the courage and integrity to do.

More (free) introductory materials here: 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology @ www.1000WordPhilosophy.com and Animals & Ethics 101: Thinking Critically About Animal Rights: www.AnimalEthics101.com