In the article "Vegetarianism, Causation, and Ethical Theory" , Russ Shafer-Landau focuses on arguments against meat consumption. One of the main argument's that Shafer-Landau focuses on is the argument made by Consequentialists. Consequentialists believe that meat eating is wrong because it inflicts harm on animals. What Shafer-Landau is arguing in this article is that Consequentialists fail to show that their is an obligation to not consume meat.
Shafer-Landau first presents the Inefficacy Argument for eating meat. The argument says that someone's purchase and eating of meat cannot directly influence the amount of harm placed upon animals. Whether a person purchases meat or not, there will still be suffering experienced by animals. The argument then goes on to say that as long as a person's actions does not cause harm, then they can act however they like. What follows is that meat purchases do no harm, thus people can purchase meat (Shafer-Landau, 85).
Consequentialists claim that people are morally responsible for certain outcomes even if they are not causually responsible for them. This means that meat eaters are responsible for the harm done to farm animals even though it seems that harm would still be done to animals regardless if people stop purchasing meat or not.
According to Shafer-Landau, Consequentialists maintain that we are supposed to perform actions that maximize utility and minimize disutility (Shafer-Landau, 91). In Shafer-Landau's opinion, meat purchases does not minimize disutility (Shafer-Landau, 91). He then goes on to say that we still have no reason to imposing a moral prohibition on the purchase of meat.
I would have to agree with Shafer-Landau. Although I find the harm inflicted upon the animals in farms wrong, I just can't see how we can reduce this. We would have to create a universal law that prohibits the purchasing and eating of meat and then we would have to somehow make sure everyone abides to that law. As you see time and time again laws are always broken so it just seems unimaginable to think that everyone would abide to that law. If that is the case then why should I have any reason to abide to the law as well. If I stop purchasing meat how much of an impact will that make? Will I prevent the harm done to any animals if I stop? If everyone else is still purchasing meat then I find those questions hard to answer.
Regarding your question of how much an impact it would make if you as an individual refrain from meat eating, Norcross has given that an answer in Puppies, Pigs and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Case. In this essay, Norcross agrees with Shafer Landau that: each individual bears a "infinitesimally small degree of responsibility" towards the harm caused to the animals. However, contrary to the claim this tiny amount of responsibility is insignificant, Norcross argues that even the tiniest responsibility counts. Just like people have to observe strictly airplane safety and security precautions, you're obliged to give up eating meat, even though doing so has only tiny chance of reducing suffering.
ReplyDeleteI generally agree with most arguments by Shafer Landau in this essay. However, I remain curious about how we should address the problem at the collective level? If we fail to condemn individual on farm animals' suffering, who should bear that responsibility? Can we rely on the government to control farms in raising and processing animals in the way that minimize their suffering?
Another valid point that Shafer-Landau points out as a deontological principle in his argument is the notion that the refusal of eating meat can extend to a symbolic level. Your enjoyment of an occasional steak may not directly spur any changes in the country's consumption levels nor the factory farming practices. However, the act of eating meat can show symbolic support for factory farming. Because factory farming is a cruel practice, we should avoid supporting it, thus meaning the abstention from eating meat. Shafer-Landau reasons that factory farming is essentially cruel because "the benefits reaped by farmers dependent on the cruelty they impose on their animals." With many accessible and viable alternatives, we cannot justify needing to support a cruel act. Just because everyone else is continuing to support such a cruel practice, does not mean that it is right for us to do so.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the logic presented by Dominique in this post regarding vegetarianism. I completely support Shafer-Landou's argument that one person is not going to be able to make any sort of difference. However, If we took that type of mindset towards everything, the world would definitely go downhill. For example, take the drought example. It would be justifiable by this logic (that if one person does something and it doesn't make a difference then there is no reason not to do it), one person using it would not make any difference so what's the reasoning behind following the rule. I think that it would definitely be beneficial for the animals if it were possible for everyone to stop eating meat, however in the world that we live in today, there just doesn't seem like any plausible chance of that happening any time soon.
ReplyDelete