How convincing is Utilitarianism when referring to the issue of eating meat?
This essay aims to make clear the insufficiency of a Utilitarian response to eating meat. Both
preference and rule utilitarian’s make the suggestion that eating meat is morally wrong, in
most cases. However, both fail to ultimately provide convincing enough arguments as to
why this is the case. And therefore, in this answer I will argue why I believe that
Utilitarianism is not convincing when referring to the issue of eating meat.
Utilitarianism as a consequentialist theory, seeks to approach moral decision making in what
provides the greatest amount of happiness, for everybody, equally. Different forms of
Utilitarianism take different approaches towards the issue of eating meat. However, all
seem to arrive at the same conclusion that eating meat is morally wrong. For an act
utilitarian like Jeremy Bentham, the greatest happiness for the greatest number is
considered. Despite one’s assumption that this moral calculus would only apply to humans,
Bentham suggests that to deny moral relevance based on species is just as arbitrary as it
would be to deny moral relevance based on gender, or race. This notion differentiates the
theory from a Kantian deontological ethics approach, which suggests that animals have no
moral worth, as they have no rational will. And, one may be inclined to agree more with
Kant in regard to this, as surely the happiness of humans is more valuable to that of animals,
in virtue of our prevailing intellect. In this way, it may seem that Utilitarianism is not
convincing here. However, a utilitarian defending Bentham’s claim, may be prepared to
suggest that Kant’s suggestion here fails, as, for example, babies seemingly have no
prevailing intellect or rational will, and yet we would not eat them. Despite this, the likeness
drawn here between eating animals and racism potentially is one rooted in classism. Where
eating animals for some people is a matter of survival and necessity, the discrimination
made against one’s race provides no such in any person’s life, therefore, to make the two
comparable seems ultimately, very unconvincing.
Another utilitarian believer of speciesism was Peter Singer, who saw a universal adoption of
vegetarianism, and the elimination of factory farming as the necessary requirements to
maximise pleasure. Many attacks can be made of Singer’s argument including the fact that
instead of treating humans and animals equally in this situation, it almost prioritises the
rights of animals. The suggestion to abolish factory farms is a largely favourable one; the
issue comes with Singer’s then suggestion that all humans should become vegetarian. This
ultimately does not take into account human suffering, as workers working in a vegetarian
factory would suffer just as much as they did working on a factory farm; the issue workers
face is not intrinsically connected to factory farming. Thus, suggesting that, for humans,
happiness here is not maximised, and thus this disparity would then make a utilitarian
approach to eating meat largely unfavourable and unconvincing. Surely, one would argue,
that a sustainable, monitored, meat industry would be a far better solution for maximising
happiness, than the entire population becoming vegetarian. The same can be applied to
Singer’s suggestion that the utilitarian approach to eating meat would mean significant
improvements for the environment. But, again, vegetarian factories also have the capacity
to produce waste and contaminate water supplies, in exactly the same way meat factories
do. Therefore, once again, a sustainable meat industry would seemingly be a better option
to maximise happiness here. In this way, the utilitarian, and particularly Singer’s, response
