Utilitarianism and Animal Husbandry - Killing Happy Animals: Explorations in Utilitarian Ethics - page 28

the animal. However, as always, this only holds if there are no alterna-
tive options that score better in terms of welfare.
What does this imply with respect to animal husbandry? We have
seen that animal suffering puts negative weight on the utilitarian scales.
But even the painless killing of happy animals, as intended in animal-
friendly animal husbandry, has the effect that the outcome contains
less welfare than it would have contained if the animal had continued
to live a pleasant life. True, painless killing does not inflict suffering
on the animal. Whether it causes any harm to animals at all will, as I
already mentioned, be discussed in the next chapter. In any case, killing
an animal that would have had a pleasant future implies a welfare loss
as compared to the option of letting the animal live on . The welfare that
the animal would otherwise have experienced is not realised. Now, the
crucial question becomes whether this welfare loss can be compensated .
I have mentioned two ways of compensating a welfare loss caused by
killing an animal that would otherwise have had a pleasant future:

(a) The killing is the only or best way to achieve greater positive conse-

quences on overall welfare.
The killing is the only or best way to prevent greater negative conse-

(b)

quences on overall welfare.

Is one of these things the case in animal-friendly animal husbandry?
Let me check for the first above-mentioned justification of killing
a happy animal, justification (a). Evaluating all consequences of the
practice of animal husbandry as compared to alternatives, in terms of
welfare, would be an important empirical task. Much has already been
explored about all kinds of negative consequences of animal husbandry,
for instance with regard to the environment, human health, and world
food distribution. Here, it should be noted that in most parts of the world
people do not use and kill animals for food , strictly speaking. Whenever
and in as far as there are fully nutritious and safe alternatives for the
consumption of animal products, animals are not used and killed for
food, but for pleasure. Those who counter that food is more than nutri-
ents alone, should at least admit that in as far as the nutrient part of food
can be provided by non-animal means, the choice for animal products
does not serve the nutrient aspect of food, but rather the taste, i.e. the
pleasure aspect of food. Interestingly, many of those who have erased
animal products from their diets have gradually developed their tastes
accordingly, and/or have been compensated for loss of taste-induced
pleasure by pleasures related to better health and 'conscience'. That is not