Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
mean that it would be opposed to all forms of consumption of animal
products or to all uses of animals. For instance, if one could manage to
receive a bit of a cow's milk without causing any suffering or death for
the cow or her calf, this would not be ruled out. If one would eat an
animal that had died a natural death or was killed in an accident, this
would be permitted. One might eat non-sentient animals, if they exist.
(If there is any reasonable doubt as to whether an animal is sentient, it
should get the benefit of the doubt.) Furthermore, one might eat meat
that is grown without the use of animals. There are attempts to produce
meat from stem cells, but this is not an available alternative yet. Animal
husbandry, which involves the infliction of harm and killing of animals,
would be ruled out.
Summing up, Prior Existence Utilitarianism does not support the ideal
of animal-friendly animal husbandry because it does not allow for the
routine killing of animals which could otherwise have had a pleasant
future. Prior Existence Utilitarianism does not allow the killing of happy
animals, so to say. Total Utilitarianism principally allows for the killing
and replacement of animals. However, due to the conditions of the
Replaceability Argument, the whole range of effects of animal husbandry
on the welfare of humans and non-humans, and due to the capacities of
animals - which according to some interpretations might exclude them
from replaceability - even proponents of Total Utilitarianism may, all
things considered, not support animal-friendly animal husbandry. For
those proponents of Total Utilitarianism, as well as for all proponents
of Prior Existence Utilitarianism, the practice of animal-friendly animal
husbandry cannot be morally justified. Vegan agriculture is considered
a morally preferable alternative.
4 Conclusion
Total Utilitarianism can in principle be compatible with animal-
friendly animal husbandry. Total Utilitarianism implies that it is
morally all right to use and kill animals provided that this does not
infringe on the animal's welfare in an unacceptable way. Total utili-
tarians accept the Replaceability Argument. Furthermore, they may
accept that animal husbandry is morally preferable to vegan agricul-
ture, either because granting animals pleasant lives benefits them, or
because having more beings with pleasant lives around is a good thing,
or both. Prior Existence Utilitarianism, in contrast, is more in line with
the goal of vegan agriculture. After all, according to Prior Existence
Utilitarianism, non-existent animals cannot benefit from being caused
Search WWH ::




Custom Search