Utilitarianism and vegetarianism

My approach will be to set out and defend that animals are conscious creatures that have the capacity to suffer, and therefore should not suffer or be killed unjustly. I set out to establish that animals have this vital characteristic, the capacity to suffer, which gives the animal the right to equal consideration of interests, as described by Peter Singer. I will also defend that the ethical question of whether one should live a vegetarian lifestyle should be decided on the context of the living circumstances of the human.

This paper discusses Peter Singer's strict ethical vegetarianism. I argue that utilitarianism does not provide sufficient grounds for vegetarianism to be presented as an ethical obligation. I argue that the boycott style of vegetarianism advocated by Singer is not an effective means of reducing the suffering experienced by animals and, finally, demonstrate that the proper application of the principle of utility to our dietary choices requires the consumption of both ethically sourced meats and roadkill.

Between the Species: An Online Journal for the Study of Philosophy and Animals, 1995

In Konstantinos Boudouris (Ed.) Proceedings of the XXIII World Congress of Philosophy. Athens: Greek Philosophical Society, 2018

There is a teeth-biting debate between vegetarianism and non-vegetarianism on human obligations towards animals. Vegetarianism appeals for equal and ethical treatment for animals whereas non-vegetarianism simply denies any such treatments considering that animals do not have a sense of morality. Non-vegetarianism seems to be ignoring some obligatory duties towards animals and undermines ethical arguments for animal rights. It does not provide sound reason for why humans should deliberately kill animals, painlessly or with least harm, for their own sake. It also overlooks the world economic situation of global hunger in which the use of the total food resources and distribution in terms of nutrition would be much more equitable if everyone was a vegetarian. This paper argues against non-vegetarianism and defends vegetarianism by making a claim that we do have moral obligations of certain kinds towards animals same as we have moral obligations towards us in terms of natural right to survival.

The most popular and convincing arguments for the claim that vegetarianism is morally obligatory focus on the extensive, unnecessary harm done to animals and to the environment by raising animals industrially in confinement conditions (factory farming). I outline the strongest versions of these arguments. I grant that it follows from their central premises that purchasing and consuming factory-farmed meat is immoral. The arguments fail, however, to establish that strict vegetarianism is obligatory because they falsely assume that eating vegetables is the only alternative to eating factory-farmed meat that avoids the harms of factory farming. I show that these arguments not only fail to establish that strict vegetarianism is morally obligatory, but that the very premises of the arguments imply that eating some (non-factory-farmed) meat rather than only vegetables is morally obligatory. Therefore, if the central premises of these usual arguments are true, then strict vegetarianism is immoral.

Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 2021

I argue that eating meat is morally good and our duty when it is part of a practice that has benefited animals. The existence of domesticated animals depends on the practice of eating them, and the meat-eating practice benefits animals of that kind if they have good lives. The argument is not consequentialist but historical, and it does not apply to nondomesticated animals. I refine the argument and consider objections.

2018

Human eating habits are widely distinguished between Vegetarianism and Non-Vegetarianism, where former presumes themselves to be holding no moral risk toward nature and animals as they do not eat animal meats. However, if we examine it closely and thoroughly, every eating habits hold some or other moral risk. My paper is an attempt to unfold different arguments made in support and against the moral concern of Vegetarianism. Although it is impalpable to answer ‘What is morally good to eat?’, our discourse helps to bring forth different arguments to understand the moral concern of our eating habits.

Between the Species, 2008

2018

Meat can be considered as a regular or even integral part of the human diet, and it has been for around 2.5 million years. Our great ancestors, hominins, were the first ones who started consuming raw meat of animals by hunting down large mammals and cutting the remaining meat from their bones. The practice of cooking meat occurred around 800 000 years ago, along with the discovery of fire. This is how carnivorism started and then evolved millions of years later. Today, meat is associated with large agricultural farms and industries, bought in the supermarkets and consumed on dinner plates. We rarely think of it as an animal that was not so long ago breathing and walking. An ethical dilemma arises since unnecessary pain and suffering is caused towards living beings for our own consumption and nourishment, which can be avoided. Additionally, meat industries are one of the largest contributors to the emission of greenhouse gases, causing enhanced global warming. One could turn towards the naturalistic fallacy and argue that since animals eat other animals to keep the food web in a steady-state equilibrium, and since humans are animals who are part of the food chain, humans, therefore, have the right to consume animals. However, this argument then additionally justifies cannibalism and humans killing humans, and we view those as immoral acts. Is it ethical to raise animals in order to consume them? If not, are we then morally obligated to shift towards a plant-based diet? In this following essay, I will try to offer possible answers to these questions by highlighting arguments for both considering eating meat as an immoral, as well as moral act. I will argue whether or not animals have a moral status and whether or not they live a life worth living in factories.

Animal Frontiers