Veganism versus Animal-Friendly Animal Husbandry - Killing Happy Animals: Explorations in Utilitarian Ethics - page 130

position with respect to the free-roaming pigs in his neighbourhood:
'They are mainly pigs, who would certainly not be kept except for the
bacon market'. 3 Roger Scruton, a famous Christian thinker and tradi-
tional conservationist claims that livestock farming is beneficial for 'all
those, including the animals, who are part of it'. This is because 'the life
that is sacrificed would not exist, but for its sacrifice. A great number of
animals owe their lives to our intention to eat them.' 4 The Logic of the
Larder is thus not a particular utilitarian argument.
A definition of the Logic of the Larder would be:

The Logic of the Larder : Killing animals is morally permissible and even
obligatory, provided that:
the animals have pleasant lives and

●

the animals would not otherwise have existed.

●

The Logic of the Larder goes further than the Replaceability Argument in
the sense that it does not only aim at justifying animal-friendly animal
husbandry as morally permissible. It even promotes animal-friendly
animal husbandry as morally superior to vegan agriculture. According
to the Logic of the Larder, animal-friendly animal husbandry can be
not only morally neutral, but even positive, morally good or obliga-
tory. Remember that the Logic of the Larder has been brought forward
against vegetarian and vegan diets. It is not about how to compensate for
the welfare loss due to the killing. Rather, it is about how to maximise
welfare by killing animals that exist only for that purpose.
On empirical grounds alone, the Logic of the Larder is unconvincing.
After all, a vegan diet would save a lot of space, energy and resources that
could be used more efficiently in order to allow animals with pleasant
lives to live. So, even if creating happy beings were a morally worthwhile
aim to strive for, animal husbandry would not be an efficient means to
this end. 5 There are more fundamental problems with the argument that
will be discussed in the following section.

2.2 The argument's relation with both versions of utilitarianism
The Logic of the Larder, which is about benefiting the animals kept in
animal husbandry, must assume that causing an animal to exist can
benefit that animal. As such, the Logic of the Larder is incompatible with
Prior Existence Utilitarianism. After all, Prior Existence Utilitarianism
must deny this assumption. It must instead assume that causing an
animal to exist cannot benefit or harm this animal. 6