Daniel Engster's Care Ethics And Animal Welfare

“Care Ethics and Animal Welfare” is an article written by Daniel Engster from the Journal of Social Philosophy, published by Wiley Periodicals in 2016. Daniel Engster received his PhD from the University of Chicago and is a professor in the Political Science department at the University of Texas in San Antonio. Daniel Engster begins his argument in the “Care Ethics, Factory Farms, and Moral Vegetarianism” section of his article by claiming that we have a responsibility to care for the animals we make dependent upon us. He continues to explain the deplorable conditions of factory farms and that the animals raised for meat are not properly cared for. Engster gives responsibility to not only the workers and overseers of factory farms, but
to consumers of the produced meat and to society as a whole for condoning such practices. The author provides that his “care theory” does not support strict veganism as chickens and sheep can be well cared for as their eggs and wool are collected and sold. Raising animals for meat on the other hand faces more scrutiny because of differing views about whether killing an animal, despite a happy existence and quick death, is moral. The article contains various strengths that render its views very convincing. Engster argues an ethical way to consume meat without challenging whether animals have moral rights or not, “we all should refrain from using animal products, or at least take special care to consume animal products only from farmers who raise and kill animals according to these guidelines.” His argument provides a direct response to the question of whether eating meat is ethical as well as a solution to the problem at hand. Some writers do not address controversy, but Engster embraces the inevitable division of opinions when he writes, “care ethics must admit some room for reasonable disagreement among people about what is the most caring approach to take toward animals.” Although the article contained plenty of well-developed ideas, there remain flaws that hinder the overall effectiveness of the argument. Engster says, “few if any of these animals would be given the opportunity to live or receive any care at all if human beings had no use for them,” but this argument is contradictory and could be utilized to justify any number of cruelties inflicted upon farm animals by arguing that at least they got to live and that their life was worth the suffering. This article ultimately supports the argument of not eating meat, but for different reasons than those of an ethical vegetarian. I found this alternative argument very enlightening although it did not alter my own viewpoint on the subject.