Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
9
Veganism versus Animal-Friendly
Animal Husbandry
1 Introduction
In this last chapter before the general conclusions, I will further explore
the implications of Total Utilitarianism and Prior Existence Utilitarianism
with regard to animal husbandry.
It has been argued that if one really cares about animals, one should
actively consume their products. If no one wanted to eat their products,
the animals would not be kept at all. They would not even exist. Provided
that the animals have pleasant lives, the farmer seems to do the animals
a favour by having them around. The animals may, as it were, be grateful
to be there, just as I may be grateful that my parents had me. Thus, it is
claimed that animal-friendly animal husbandry is good for the animals
involved, even if the animals are ultimately killed. A short, pleasant life
is better for an animal than no life at all. This influential argument in
favour of animal-friendly animal husbandry and against vegetarianism
and veganism has been dubbed the Logic of the Larder. I will point out
how this argument relates to Total Utilitarianism and Prior Existence
Utilitarianism.
Does utilitarianism support the goal of animal-friendly animal
husbandry, after all? It is now time to point out what Total Utilitarianism
and Prior Existence Utilitarianism imply for the practice of animal-
friendly husbandry. Total Utilitarianism implies the Replaceability
Argument and seems to be compatible with the moral goal of animal-
friendly animal husbandry. However, Total Utilitarianism's alleged
support for animal-friendly animal husbandry must be qualified in
important ways. Prior Existence Utilitarianism, in turn, is not compat-
ible with the Replaceability Argument. As Prior Existence Utilitarianism
128
Search WWH ::
Custom Search