2

I was having a discussion with a friend recently on whether it is beneficial, overall, for us to be vegetarian for farm animals, from a consequentialist viewpoint. Currently, farm animals are bred in extremely large numbers in farms, out of which a large portion is for human consumption. If there is more vegetarianism in the world, then the breeding of farm animals would reduce drastically as the demand falls.

This means, that a lot of lives that could have existed would not exist if vegetarianism becomes substantially more popular.

This brings us to the nonidentity problem. If farm life is worth living for animals, then non-vegetarianism actually improves the overall welfare. If farm life is worse than not existing for animals, then killing all farm animals is an improvement over letting them continue to live.

  1. Is my interpretation of the nonidentity problem in this context correct?
  2. Particularly, is the second part of killing all farm animals covered in the nonidentity problem? If not, is this part still logically sound? If not, how?
  3. What are some other problems with this line of argument, if any?
Ishan Kashyap Hazarika
  • 161
  • 3
  • Do you mean vegan or vegetarian? Vegetarians eat other animals products, they just don't eat meat. – NotThatGuy Jul 27 '23 at 22:15
  • 1
    "We should keep torturing animals, because the alternative of them not existing is worse" is not a *great* argument (but I'm not really too inclined to post an answer right now). – NotThatGuy Jul 27 '23 at 22:17
  • Humans are doing many things at vast scale that really need to be improved upon. We don't seem to be a net positive for anything on the planet, except plastic. – Scott Rowe Jul 27 '23 at 23:57
  • @NotThatGuy I guess both vegetarianism and veganism would lead to lesser number of farm animals being bred, because a lot of animals are bred primarily for meat which both vegetarians and vegans don't eat. I come from India where 40% people are lacto-vegetarians: consuming dairy products but not meat so that is how I define vegetarianism – Ishan Kashyap Hazarika Jul 28 '23 at 05:43
  • @NotThatGuy I understand this might not be a *great* argument, the argument sounds a bit like "the alternatives to capitalism are worse".... But what I am interested in is the technicalities of the argument – Ishan Kashyap Hazarika Jul 28 '23 at 05:45
  • @ScottRowe That's up for debate – Ishan Kashyap Hazarika Jul 28 '23 at 05:48
  • 1
    @NotThatGuy, Most farm animals live more comfortable lives than wild animals, for many of them their average lifespan is longer, and their deaths are quicker, less painful, and less terrifying than they could expect in the wild. Calling that situation "torture" is not philosophy; it is political propaganda. – David Gudeman Jul 28 '23 at 06:22
  • 1
    @DavidGudeman Oh boy, you should read up on what animals actually go through on factory farms. Separating mothers from infants, confining animals to a caged lifetime indoors, in extremely crowded conditions, debeaking chickens and cutting off the tails and clipping the teeth of pigs to prevent them from going mad and canabalising one another, genetic manipulation to maximise how their flesh tastes, causing a host of debilitating medical conditions, gassing pigs to kill them, grounding up infant chickens, etc. The wild is not that cruel, but even if it were, it wouldn't justify our cruelty. – NotThatGuy Jul 28 '23 at 08:44
  • 1
    It's not the fur, it's the **scale**. On a family farm, David is probably correct. In factory farming, NotThatGuy is. Can humans do things at scale that improve life for humans without worsening it for everything else? Not without things like fusion power and lab grown meat. But consider horses used for transportation (not eating): there are a lot fewer of them now than a century ago. Maybe with more automation, we would have time to keep them as pets again? Perhaps instead of pondering philosophy, we should get going on engineering. – Scott Rowe Jul 28 '23 at 12:15
  • @ScottRowe Most people (in the middle- to upper-class) have the means and opportunity to reduce their consumption of animal products significantly, and replace that with existing alternatives. We don't need more engineering, we need more people to make that choice (there is a supply surplus at the moment, so demand can increase plenty before supply becomes a problem, and when demand increases, this would become a more lucrative industry, which would drive up supply). But of course people are also working on more alternatives. – NotThatGuy Jul 28 '23 at 16:04
  • Anyone claiming that farm animals dont suffer just needs to spend a little time with youtube to get a sense of what happens: [exhibit1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6DGYvSfhPM) [exhbibit2](https://youtu.be/eXaPyPQAQB0). Others have spoken more [eloquently](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/68562/37256). I cant say much since I am not a success at veganism... Only one word: sophistry – Rushi Jul 28 '23 at 18:01
  • @NotThatGuy but they don't have the motive to change, so the crime goes on. I would switch to comparable lab meat foods at a comparable price. My 13 year run of vegetarian living didn't end up well, despite knowledge and best effort. I couldn't really function without coffee either, like 90% of the Earth's people. *How are those electric cars sellin'? Can't charge 'em?* Hmm. Those bigger than ever vehicles wouldn't sell so well if gas cost what it actually should. – Scott Rowe Jul 28 '23 at 18:29
  • @ScottRowe Ethics and empathy should be sufficient motive to change (although "I don't wanna" and "so you're telling me I've been doing bad things all my life" is hard to counter). The only action you can really do by yourself (aside from speaking up) is to reduce your own consumption of animal products. Although I think banning inhumane conditions on farms is probably an easier sell than trying to convince everyone to tend towards veganism (although there are certainly also other options like taxes and grants and things). – NotThatGuy Jul 28 '23 at 19:32
  • @NotThatGuy yes, it seems easier to stop a few suppliers of drugs than millions of consumers. In this case the consumers would have to vote to make laws that stopped the suppliers. Like Doctor Strangelove using one arm to stop the other. Perhaps humanity has a split personality? Or maybe you are arguing that it *should*. We just have to find the right sales pitch, like the baby seal thing, or the dolphins in fishing nets. Our country could improve conditions on farms, and 180 other countries might not. We vote to put our suppliers out of business. Hmm – Scott Rowe Jul 28 '23 at 21:40

1 Answers1

2

This probably isn't a good idea, but I'm gonna try my luck by posting what I feel is a relevant quote.

"Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted." ~ (Attributed to) Albert, the genius, Einstein.

Agent Smith
  • 2,488
  • 6
  • 22
  • 1
    Yes, I was thinking something similar, that the overall picture is what matters. But, I don't have any overalls, because I don't work on a farm. – Scott Rowe Jul 28 '23 at 18:25
  • 1
    I'm not educated enough to understand this I suppose. This seems to me to be a comment on utilitarianism in general than on whether the inferences are correctly based on the premises – Ishan Kashyap Hazarika Jul 29 '23 at 19:54