Re: Vegetarianism

["Nicholas Day" <apyxnd@nottingham.ac.uk>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


Brief? :-) – I’d call it… comprehensive.  Sorry to make you repeat yourself.

>>  1. why is it necessarily better that a given animal should exist?
>>if u compare this argument to the case of humans should we therefore all loads of >>children?

I didn’t say it was *necessarily* better for any animal to exist than to not exist.  If an animal exists and lives a life that is unbearable, it would be better that it didn’t exist.  But when an animal will have a life that is worth living (other’s feelings being equal) then it is better than it does exist than that it doesn’t. I assumed that most domestic animals live a life that is worth living, and I excluded battery-farmed animals from that.  This view, when considering humans, suggests that it is better for a human that would have a life worth living to exist than not to exist – I don’t have a problem with that.  With both those points (i.e. for humans and other animals) the (utilitarian) proviso is always that total happiness must increase (e.g. a would-be child might have a just bearable existence, but its existence might make everyone else in the family miserable, and therefore it would be better if this child never came into existence.)

>>2) you assume that there is no suffering involved in killing animals but
>>
>>a) pigs/ cows are sufficiently intelligent to develop relationships and studies >>have shown they can identify their families and mourn for their loss. to kill >>some non-human is to deprive their family members of that relationship. >>Thereby decreasing hedons..
>>
>>b) all animals suffer upon death.

Hmm. sorry if I gave that impression – it certainly isn’t my belief that animals do no suffer upon death.  But as far as what you say is true, that all animals suffer upon death, then this includes humans and is not restricted to being intentionally killed – many people die horrific deaths from disease as well as war, but I think this only very rarely constitutes a reason for saying that it would have been better that they never exist. I think that domestic animals are not killed in a way that means it would have been better that they never existed.  And again, regarding these relationships, I feel that it is better that these animals existed to have these relationships than to say that since the relationship must end and bring some misery, it should never exist in the first place.  If the misery caused by the breaking of these relationships is such that the animals that are left no longer live lives that are worth living, then I would agree with the vegetarian – but I don’t think that is the case.

And on to this one…
>>1. this would not lead to extinction, we still have dairy cows etc, in good welfare >>conditions.

I realize this was in reply to someone else, but I would just say that it isn’t extinction that bothers me, but just the reduction of worthwhile life.  It is true that not all domestic animal life would be forfeit if the nation became vegetarian (e.g. as you say, dairy cows) –but an a lot of it would be.. all those animals that rely on the support of money from the meat industry.

>>2. this would mean more land could be used. every 1 lb of animal protein >>requires 8lb of vegetable protein. clearly rearing non-human animals for food is >>wasteful.

This is true (the wastefulness) with regards to a calculation of only energy – but the rearing of non-human animals has the advantage, in my opinion, of sustaining an ‘extra’ worthwhile life.  Perhaps there are more (morally) worthwhile things to do with spare land than grew crops to support animals that in turn support humans – you suggest helping to save species from extinction.  That doesn’t instantly convince me personally – I can’t see any intrinsic value in having more species rather than less if the numbers of beings remain equal. 

And the last one… 

I won’t bother you with too much detail...  I’d just say that my argument didn’t claim that animals (inc. humans) had rights or that animals (inc. humans) didn’t have rights, nor that members of the human species necessarily have more value than members of other species, nor that an animal (inc. humans) must be a person or a moral agent to be considered by a moral system; and for the record, I think that the ‘good’ of an experience is (logically) independent of the species that is experiencing. My argument merely assumed that animals can have good experiences and bad experiences, and that an attempt to maximize the good experiences does not lead to vegetarianism (in my opinion).  If sound, then a Utilitarian should be convinced by that.  Non-utiltarians may be convinced as far as they feel that whether, in the end, animals have rights or not, it is better for the animals that they exist than that they don’t exist.

Nick


This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.



Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm