Peter Singer / Wikipedia
I was recently listening to a podcast titled “Talking Animal Ethics with Peter Singer,” episode 31 of Within Reason, a podcast by Youtuber Alex O’Connor, aka Cosmic Skeptic. I enjoy his philosophical content, and I’m a fan of Peter Singer, Australian utilitarian philosopher. There was a section that grabbed me; it begins at about 34:00.
When discussing “raising animals ‘humanely’ before killing them,” Singer states that it’s not wrong for theoretical humans to be killed if they would not have been born otherwise and live a good life, even if they’d be killed prematurely and used as a means and not as an end - like farm animals. (This aspect of the discussion captures the essence of the non-identity problem.)
I agree with Singer that using a person as a means rather than an end is sometimes ethical; the example he uses to illustrate this point is moving an unconscious person’s leg under a concrete block to save one’s own child from being crushed to death in a building collapse. However, even in the example, while using someone as a means is ethical, given the circumstances, the act itself isn’t ethical. That is, if you could save your child without having to move someone’s leg under a concrete block, that would be better.
(This is a good place to quickly get metaethical. My morality is based on a simple tenet: Consciousness is valuable [to conscious creatures]. Broadly, sentient creatures want to be happy and, when they are, to continue to live. When I write that something is ethical, in this context, I mean that it promotes less obligate suffering.)
Now, I understand that we live in a complex world where we have to make choices that entail both good and bad consequences. But, whenever possible, we try to avoid the negative consequences, to reduce them to zero, ideally.
It seems doubtful that we could live our lives without impacting nature negatively in some way, even in an idealized future. There’s overpopulation, invasive species, pests, limited resources, and so on. I want, therefore, to focus on animal agriculture, the focus of the podcast episode. In other words, is there an answer that reduces animal suffering to creatures bred into existence to be used as a means rather than an end?
As I pointed out, Singer finds it difficult to condemn the practice as long as, as he puts it, their lives are worth living and they are killed “humanely.” So, one answer is to improve farm conditions and slaughter methods. The incentives of feeding a growing population and profit seeking don’t often align with this altruistic goal. Further, there is no federal regulation standardizing animal care in factory farms. Also, where regulation is in place, abuse is still common and requires exposure. So, trusting that animals are treated humanely is problematic, especially with the large farms needed to feed an omnivorous, growing population.
I think there’s a clearer answer. Try not to eat or buy animal products, or, at least, to reduce consumption. Try is the key word. It is easier said (or written) than done. Animal products are cheap and ubiquitous. More, buying and/or consuming animal products is culturally acceptable, expected even. I don’t want to point the finger at someone who struggles to go vegetarian. I did, at 19. Also, I, otherwise vegan, currently eat pasture raised eggs (for health) and relax standards (to vegetarian) when interacting with difficult situations. If we don’t consume or buy animal products, there is no need to exploit animals in farms. We won’t need to breed them into existence and, ipso facto, justify a wrong. Surely, it would be better not to do the wrong. In other words, since there is no need to consume animal products, there is no need to use animals in this way. If there were, if were were obligate cannibals, for example, then I would agree with Singer that I would find it difficult to condemn such a practice. Luckily, we have a choice.
This isn’t a clean answer; plant-based agriculture has its own issues, including the unintentional killing of animals, mostly insects. I think, though, this involves less suffering. First, we aren’t breeding animals, creating an incentive for their exploitation and slaughter. Second, I believe that insects, if they’re sentient, and I suspect they are, likely, given the size and complexity of their nervous systems, are less intelligent and feel less pain than farm animals (whose nervous systems more closely resemble ours). I also think most people think this. If given a choice to squash an insect or stab a cow, I think most, if obligated, would choose the former.
In addition, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention better animal agriculture models, such as regenerative farming. I don’t know a lot on this topic. But currently it doesn’t seem to be a model that could replace factory farming. Plant-based agriculture, on the other hand, is able to do this since it requires fewer resources than factory farming. (Here is more on that.) And when comparing more ethical methods of animal agriculture with plant agriculture, the latter seems to be inherently more ethical. The reason is simple: Unless some shocking scientific discoveries occur, killing animals causes more suffering than killing plants, if I grant, which I don’t, that plants can suffer. We can also benefit from plants without killing or harming them, such as eating their fruits.
To be clear, being vegan or vegetarian does nothing to solve issues of animal suffering as a result of what Tennyson called “Nature, red in tooth and claw.” The natural world is full of death and suffering. Predators have to kill to survive. Many do it for fun. I don’t know if future ethical concerns will focus on bloody nature. It seems doubtful we will be able to do much there without dangerously disturbing complex and sensitive ecosystems. We must make the best with what we have. We must eat, if we must exist. And I choose to.