Deontology, Rights, and Meat Consumption

In his article, "Vegetarianism, Causation and Ethical Theory", Russ Shafer-Landau argues that consequentialism and deontological ethics both fail to explain why one should not consume meat. He notes the shift from arguments against factory farming practices to ones that argue against meat consumption, but in his opinion, these issues are "separable", and so the latter deserves its own set of arguments (Shafer-Landau, 85). After arguing against the consequentialist view, Shafer-Landau asks: "if we do not tie moral imperatives to benefits or harms, what are they tied to?" (92). For a deontologist, the answer to this may be that moral imperatives are tied to rights. The author states that there are two views as to why this is so. The first view, which Shafer-Landau calls the "interest view" states that our rights exist as protection of our interests, and that rights violations translate to a "setback" of our interests (92). The second view, called the "autonomy view", states that rights allow us to do as we choose, and that violations of our rights is an infringement of our autonomy (92). The author states that if we believe that permanently comatose individuals have rights, then one may have valid doubts about the autonomy view (93). Obviously, this is because these individuals have lost the ability to do as they choose which goes against the definition of the autonomy view.

Vegetarianism on a National and Individual Scale

A recent article published on the Voice of America website revealed that there has been a sharp decrease in the amount of meat consumed in America in recent years, presumably due in part to the spread of vegetarianism. “For the first time on record, U.S. per-capita meat consumption has declined for four consecutive years, according to the most recent figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The six percent drop between 2006 and 2010 is the largest sustained decline since recordkeeping began in 1970. (voanews.com)” The article admits that that change is most likely due in part to economic changes in the US, but suggests that it is also has something to do with vegetarians and ‘flexitarians.’ The article notes that there has been a rise in campaigns such as “Meatless Monday”, which is implemented at DePauw, as well as many other schools and organizations around the world. A major reason why more and more people are attempting to eliminate meat from their diets is because it can be unhealthy. Additionally, livestock, especially cattle, are terrible for the environment because they must be given a huge amount of water and grain every day to survive.

            In his article, Shafer-Landau argued that there is little or no reason for an individual to become a vegetarian, even if it is the ethically correct thing to do, because that individual’s contribution on its own would have no impact on the meat industry. Although it doesn’t prove that an individual can influence the meat industry on thir own, it does report that people who abstain from meat have collectively made a difference. Shafer-Landau agrees that this is true, but seems to be greatly underestimating the influence that one person can have on others. For example, the article mentioned Joe Yonan, the food editor for the New York Times, who received numerous letters of praise for his decision to stop eating meat. It seems likely that an influential person such as him could perhaps encourage others to convert as well. Even if someone isn’t as famous as Yonan, they still have some influence of their friends, who in turn influence their friends. There is certainly a possibility that one individual converting could lead to a snowball effect. Additionally, even just a few vegetarians in a small community can have a dramatic effect. In my fraternity, for example, only a small portion of the total house are vegetarians, but because of us, some of the food served for every meal is always meat-free. And since that food is bought locally, (usually from Krogers) it could potentially have a minute effect on the amount of meat products sold by that retailer, which just might be significant enough to eventually cause enough reduction of demand to prevent one or more animals from being hurt or killed, and that is reason enough for me.

Works Cited

Baragona, Steve. "As World Meat Consumption Grows, US Appetite Wanes." Voice of America [Washinton] 3 Apr. 2013: n. pag. Voice of America. Web. 23 Apr. 2013. <http://www.voanews.com/content/as_world_meat_consumption_grows_americas_appetite_wanes/1634222.html>.

False Hope:  Vegetarianism and Animal Cruelty

Animal rights is a very controversial topic especially pertaining to factory farms.  Animals at such facilities are often subjected to harsh treatment during their lives so that they can be slaughtered and sold for human consumption.  In effect, someone must be held responsible for how these animals are treated.  Russ Shafer-Landau explores the various arguments pertaining to animal cruelty in his article "Vegetarianism, Causation, and Ethical Theory".  He critiques two versions of the consequentialists' arguments towards meat eating which he dubbed the "...Inefficacy Argument..." (Shafer-Landau, 1994).

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.