Sustainabilitarianism And Eating Beef Case Study

Critical Summary of “Sustainabilitarianism and Eating Beef”
The case study from chapter 1 of Environmental Ethics for Canadians confirms Williston’s view on the ethical progress of consuming meat. His view is supported through his analysis between the relationship of eating meat and climate change, which references Regan and Singer’s perspective on animal welfarism. Williston discusses that the demand for meat products have increased livestock industries and the way factory farms are conducted to farm their livestock. The argument opposing the idea of meat production inflicting unnecessary pain to the animals is sufficiently supported by animal welfarism. Despite sound reasons that are provided, it is not enough to prohibit people from consuming meat (49). Williston stated that, “animal welfarism [is] the view that individual non-human animals have intrinsic value and that this imposes on us
The validity of the term, animal welfarism is only true if these non-human individuals are in fact intrinsically valuable. This means that animals can attain value of their own, distinct from financial value that is endorsed by human individuals in which humans have a degree of duty to them, such as treating them humanely. Emerging from this is the question of whether or not humans are willing to separate the meaning of animals having their own value from financial value humans impose on them. The term intrinsic value is supposed to improve an animals living condition, but it has no effect or does the exact opposite; the term is merely used as a “mask-effect” supposedly making us think that they are living in a good environment, when it does not in fact benefit the