Peter Singer Utilitarianism

Peter Singer asserts that utilitarianism implies a moral obligation to be a vegetarian. Utilitarianism holds that the right actions, or what we ought to do, are those actions that are expected to produce the best overall consequences, provide maximum utility, happiness or pleasure and minimize pain and suffering. Utilitarians look at the probable consequences of choices and choose their actions based on whatever they believe will produce the most utility or pleasure. Singer claims that if one is a utilitarian, then one ought to be a vegetarian. He agrees with the principle of equality of interests, which states that states all interests ought to be given equal consideration. A being that has the capacity for pain and suffering has an interest in avoiding pain and suffering.
Humans and some nonhuman animals have this capacity and their interests should be equally considered. The utility is not simply the best consequences for humans, but for nonhuman animals as well.
Singer does not say that we need to treat animals the same way that we treat humans, but he does say that we need to consider their interests as being equal to the similar interests of humans. In doing so, we must consider the pain and suffering that animals endure in factory farms. Animals are subjected to cramped, unsanitary living conditions and methods of slaughter that cause pain and suffering. Singer says that because pain and suffering are not in the animals’ interests, it would be best if factory farming were phased out gradually as the number of vegetarians increases and the demand for animal products decreases. Over a period of years, factory farms could be closed as less meat is necessary and people find that vegetarian diets are satisfying, nutritious, and as many suggest, healthier for us.
Singer says that eating meat in itself is not a bad thing, but the methods employed to procure the meat are. He argues that the treatment of animals needs to be changed. The pain and suffering caused to animals through the conditions in which they are raised and slaughtered can be reduced if people become vegetarians. Singer says becoming vegetarian is “the most practical and effective step we can take toward ending the exploitation of animals” (336). He acknowledges that one person becoming a vegetarian may not impact the demand for meat, but if that one person is just one of many people that become vegetarian, this pronounced shift would impact the demand and the industry would respond by reducing the supply of animals for meat.
Singer recognizes that abolishing factory farms would decrease utility for some humans. The people who work at factory farms would lose their jobs, as would others whose occupations support factory farming, such as people who produce the grain and feed for the animals. Singer counters that this decrease in utility is a one-time event and that the economy will absorb the effects of it. However, he notes that the cruelty to animals from factory farming goes on and on; it is not a one-time event.
Singer argues that both humans and nonhuman animals will benefit from abolishing factory farming. Utility for animals will increase as they no longer will be subjected to pain and suffering. Utility for humans will also increase. The fields previously used to grow expensive feed and grain for animals can be used to produce affordable food for human consumption. Humans will also increase utility through improved health associated with a vegetarian diet. Environmental benefits will also increase utility as fewer animals being bred will result in a decreased need for animal waste disposal.
In the second book of Douglas Adams’ Hitchhiker’s trilogy, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, Adams provides us with a solution to Singer’s assertion that utilitarianism implies a moral obligation to vegetarianism. Adams presents us with cows that are bred to want to be eaten and are even able to tell us of this desire. Such a breed provides maximum utility for both humans and cows, thus negating the obligation for vegetarianism. Because such breeding is implausible, or at least I will assume that it is, other avenues must be explored to provide maximum utility for all beings, both human and nonhuman.
I will not argue that animals in factory farms do not suffer, or that their treatment is not immoral.
I do, however, object to the assertion that their living conditions cannot be improved without a regression to maltreatment. Singer refers to this as a “slippery slope” (332). Current factory farming and slaughter practices should be reformed. This would be “the most practical and effective step” to end animal cruelty. Animals could be given better and more sanitary living conditions. Less painful methods of killing animals could be employed. This may increase the cost of meat to the consumer, but the increased utility for the animals will far outweigh this cost.
Animals reared in factory farms live in cages, crates, or other confined spaces that do not allow them to move and turn around. These animals suffer injury and bruising from rubbing against the cages, wires and walls of their enclosures. They are forced to live in cramped, overcrowded quarters, surrounded by their own waste. They suffer from brittle bones due to lack of exercise. They are more prone to infections and diseases which spread quickly because of overcrowding. Their lives are filled with suffering due to these
conditions.
Free range or humanely farmed animals provide utility to both humans and nonhuman animals. The animals require less feed and live longer, healthier, less stressful lives than factory farmed animals. They suffer less and can roam and interact with other animals. Humanely farmed animals do not require the amount of antibiotics and hormones needed by factory farmed animals. This improves the utility for humans as they consume meat that is healthier and not tainted with antibiotics, hormones and other chemicals. They also benefit in the knowledge that they are less likely to acquire food-borne illnesses such as salmonella and e-coli. Humans increase their utility in the comfort gained by knowing that the animals were treated humanely. They also benefit from the jobs required to raise animals on humane farms and from the profitability of these farms.
Methods of slaughter should be revised to decrease the pain and suffering experienced by animals before and during their killing. More humane methods of slaughter would include methods to decrease the injury animals suffer on the ramps and in the chutes to the slaughterhouses. Restraining, handling and stunning methods need to be reformed to prevent suffering, as do the actual methods of slaughter. Humans who work in slaughterhouses would benefit from increased morale as they see less suffering in the animals. The meat industry would also benefit from increased profits as less meat is damaged by injury to the animals. Humans would benefit in the knowledge that the animals were killed humanely.
Utilitarianism does not imply that we ought to be vegetarians. If, all things considered, animals live lives that have more pleasure than suffering, then it is defensible to eat the meat of those animals. Singer proposes that we stop eating meat and phase out factory farms. He says the animals that would have been bred will not be born in the first place. However, breeding on a humane farm will allow animals to enjoy the pleasure of life even though there may be minimal suffering. Utilitarianism implies that a life seeking maximum pleasure allows for some suffering, as long as it is outweighed by happiness. Therefore, we are justified in eating animals that have been raised and slaughtered in humane ways.
Now, let’s “meet the meat!” (apologies to Douglas Adams).