Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an
infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But sup-
pose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? . . . The
question is not, Can they reason? Nor Can they talk? But,
Can they suffer?
—Jeremy Bentham,
Introduction to the
Principles of Morals and Legislation
, 2nd ed.
(London: Pickering, 1823), chapter 17.
Bentham's utilitarianism philosophy, espousing the idea
that public policy should be designed to maximize total hap-
piness and minimize total suffering, would become especially
important to Peter Singer. In his topic
Animal Liberation
, Singer
used utilitarianism to argue that most livestock production
was immoral and that consumers should cease to eat such
foods. It was this topic, along with Ruth Harrison's
Animal
Machines
, that launched livestock welfare controversies in the
1960s and 1970s, which are still debated today and discussed
in this chapter.
Animal Liberation
did not necessarily call for a vegan diet,
though. Singer's particular version of utilitarianism suggested
that the raising of livestock for food can be ethical if the ani-
mals are treated humanely. In a later topic with Jim Mason,
The Way We Eat
, Singer takes readers on a tour of various farms
to help them distinguish between humane and inhumane
food. So even though Singer is often cast as an extreme ani-
mal rightist, his general philosophy is in tune with the aver-
age American: that livestock raised for food should be treated
humanely. Where Singer differs from the average American is
in his view of what constitutes “humane.”
Why is it that one person can deem a particular style of
farming humane while another person dissents? Part of the
disagreements arise because no one really knows what an ani-
mal is feeling. It must be inferred based on common sense,
biological measurements, and animal behavior—but widely
differing conclusions emanate from those inferences. Three
