The Argument Against: It’s been awhile since I’ve written anything under this heading. I must make an effort to do so more often. I came across this report by AP regarding a secretly shot video within a large poultry farm; the contents of which I can only describe as disturbing. It shows male chicks –yes, tiny yellow cute chicks- being killed because they don’t lay eggs and they don’t develop quickly enough to yield much meat. I’m embedding the video below. While it’s not extremely graphic, you may or may not find it disturbing. I would advise discretion when viewing it.
I’ve seen my share of animal cruelty videos in addition to documentaries detailing factory farming practices. I’ve read numerous articles and editorials explaining why we should turn into vegetarians. These are far too many to list in one blog post. But I will share this article written by the supremely intelligent Peter Singer. While he didn’t coin the term, Dr.Singer has been one of the most influential academics to speak out against speciesism, which is basically discrimination based on species. His article is a good starting point because he argues using both practical and philosophical positions, which makes the content very lucid and accessible.
However, I am not left without doubts as to his ultimate position. He argues midway through the article that we should not treat animals as mere objects, ignoring their interests in exchange for our benefit. There is more than a tinge of Kantian reasoning in this argument, in that we should not treat others as mere means but we should regard them as ends of themselves. But not more than a few lines later, when addressing the morality of consuming even any meat at all, he makes a consequentialist prescription: that we should act in a manner that would reduce or contribute the least to animal suffering. Most basic moral philosophy courses teach that Kantian ethics and consequentialist ethics such as utilitarianism are contradictory. Of course, there are notable exceptions –my professor thinks that Kant was actually a consequentialist and even wrote a book on it. But the disconnect lies therein –and I simplify the argument greatly: if all beings are to be treated equally as ends and never as means, how can it be that we should act in a manner that determines good based on an aggregate of utility; a system that clearly advocates the welfare of the many, at the expense of the few or even the individual. And more importantly, on a practical level, if we accept the Kantian conception of meat consumption, would it mean that in all circumstances it would be immoral to consume meat or meat products? I may have butchered Singer’s arguments. Let me know if so. Best if I get my hands on a copy of Animal Liberation.
