Kant's Vegetarianism

            With vegetarianism becoming a hot trend in today’s society, it is fitting that many philosophers have examined its counterpart, meat eating, and analyzed its morality under different ethical lenses. Shafer-Landau is one of those philosophers. In his paper “Vegetarianism, Causation and Ethical Theory”, Shafer-Landau evaluates which ethical theory produces the strongest argument against meat-eating and animal suffering in factory farms. Although he believes his argument using virtue ethics is by far his strongest, I see his method of Kantian ethics in reference to universalization being the greatest proof to abstain from eating meat.

            In this argument, Shafer-Landau describes that a vegetarian who adopts Kantian ethics can claim that if their maxim were to be universalized, that “ such universal action would have the most dramatic impact on reducing suffering” (Shafer-Landau 1993, 94). If everyone followed this maxim, the 1/100,000,000 contribution each person is accountable for would all be accounted for, saving an unbelievable amount of animal suffering, and producing a grand positive effect.

            Even with disregarding the objection that humans’ wants and needs be treated as an end more than animals, Shafer-Landau also argues that a major flaw of universalization is that the maxim would not recruit enough followers. He says that there would “be the failure of enough others to cooperate in reducing the amount of animal suffering” (Shafer- Landau 1993, 94). Vegetarians do not have enough support from the public, and therefore would not be successful in their intended impact on animal suffering.

            Although I agree with Shafer-Landau that not enough people support the maxim of non-meat eating to have everyone follow the universal maxim, I disagree with him that this flaws the argument in itself. Kantian ethics proposes that something is a categorical imperative if a maxim is acted upon that can at the same time be willed to be a universal law (Kant, 102). With this in mind, the maxim for a vegetarian would be I would like to end animal suffering, so I do not purchase or eat meat from factory farms. If this maxim were consistently willed to be universalized, the result would be an extreme stop to animal suffering. This is a maxim that can be consistently willed. No matter how much support it were to receive, The vegetarian maxim has a valid argument through Kantian ethics that it is morally right. I think Shafer-Landau brought up a valid predicament in actually implementing vegetarianism universally, but I see no proof that undermines the argumentation as a whole. Just like Singer will not persuade everyone to give away their money to poverty, vegetarians will not persuade everyone to not eat meat; their argumentations can still be considered valid, however.

Works Cited:

Kant, Immanuel. “The Good Will and the Categorical Imperative.” In The Ethical Life, by Russ Shafer-Landau, 198-206. 2^nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press

Shafer-Landau, Russ. "Vegetarianism, Causation and Ethical Theory." Public Affairs Quarterly. no. 1 (1994): 85-100.