Noted utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer argued that we have a moral obligation to be vegetarians. From a paper I wrote last year for an environmental philosophy course, I noted that his reasons for arguing so are:
...that the principle of equality of interests, grounded in morality, demands that we cease not only our consumption of animal flesh, but also our support of it. For if we don’t, then we are no better than either those who held slaves or turned a blind eye to the act of slavery. According to Singer, this is a natural consequence of his earlier premises; namely:
- The interests of a being are what is important to regard equally with others
- This equality should apply to all sentient beings capable of suffering
- We ought to strive for this equality
- It is an animal’s interest not to suffer (or be killed and eaten)
Since animals do suffer in the meat factories that provide us with meat to eat, this goes against their interests, and it follows that we ought to no longer eat them or allow others to do so.
I disagree; even given the veracity of those premises we are under no moral imperative to cease the act of consuming meat. Such an act, stemming from the predilections of man's nature, are amoral and not subject to such moral scrutiny.
In the interests of time, I refer you to my paper to get a better synopsis of Singer's arguments and my counter-arguments. So, do you think it's compelling that an argument on moral grounds can obligate us to refrain from the tasty carcasses of animals?
