The Replaceability Argument - Killing Happy Animals: Explorations in Utilitarian Ethics - page 54

the animals that replace the killed ones will have increasingly positive
lifetime welfare.
Even if an animal would not be killed, it is likely that it would experi-
ence some discomfort in old age before dying naturally. Thus, in any
real life examples, unlike my example in Section 2, the welfare level of
the animal would possibly be less at the end of its life. Even if this is
the case, the assumption is that the animal would have had an overall
pleasant future. Therefore, killing the animal still reduces the overall
quantity of welfare, even if it has the result that the welfare decrease due
to old age will be avoided. If the killing causes any additional welfare
loss, because it causes suffering or desire-frustration, this must be taken
into account over and above the welfare loss that is caused by the loss of
the welfare that the animal would have experienced in the future. So, in
order for the practice of animal-friendly animal husbandry to meet the
third condition of the Replaceability Argument, the killing should take
place without any unbalanced negative side effects, such as pain or fear
for the animal or others. This is far from being realized with most current
methods of killing animals. 12 However, more welfare-friendly methods of
killing might be practiced. Hence, let us assume for the remainder of this
topic, that the practice of animal-friendly animal husbandry in principal
is able to meet also the third condition of the Replaceability Argument.
To sum up, it is questionable whether current practices of animal
husbandry could satisfy the conditions of the Replaceability Argument.
However, there might be practices of animal husbandry that grant
animals sufficiently pleasant lives and that avoid any unbalanced nega-
tive side effects of the killing. Probably, those systems would need to
score better in terms of animal welfare than current systems of organic
agriculture. With the aid of the Replaceability Argument, utilitarianism
would admit those practices as morally permissible. In that sense, utili-
tarianism would support animal-friendly animal husbandry.
5 The scope of the Replaceability Argument
The idea that animals are replaceable as proposed by the Replaceability
Argument might suit well those who wish to support animal-friendly
animal husbandry. In contrast, the idea that animals are replaceable
has also been criticized for being incompatible with taking animals seri-
ously. 13 Even Singer, who accepts the Replaceability Argument, admits
that it 'feels odd' to compensate the killing of one being with the crea-
tion of another being. Singer admits: 'The proposition that the creation