Animal Welfare PHI 2630

The Plan Norcross's Case of Fred Fred vs. The Meat Consumer Singer on Speciesism Singer on Equality

The Story of Fred

Ethics Thought Experiments Create a fictional scenario meant to parallel a real-world scenario. Fictional scenario can be a far-fetched science fiction type scenario But differences between scenarios cannot be morally relevant The task: seek morally relevant differences between the fictional scenario and real life.

Fred vs. Consumer (1) Fred tortures the puppies himself. But meat-eaters aren't the ones inflicting pain and suffering on pigs, cows, chickens, etc.

Fred vs. Consumer (1) Would we let Fred off the hook if he had someone else (out of sight and mind) torture the puppies and extract the cocoamone?

Fred vs. Consumer (2) Most consumers are unaware of how animals are treated in factory farms.

Fred vs. Consumer (2) The number of bilssfully ignorant meateaters is rapidly dwindling. And WE sure as heck ain't getting off the hook at this point!

Fred vs. Consumer (3) My choices won't even put a dent in the factory farming system, so I might as well enjoy my bacon.

Fred vs. Consumer (3) Would we allow the same excuse for the enjoyment of cocoamone extracted from tortured puppies? What about a delicious meal cooked by human slaves?

Fred vs. Consumer (3) Claiming causal importence is just plain wrong. Your choices and activism can reduce the amount of animal suffering in the world.

Fred vs. Consumer (4) But Fred was torturing PUPPIES! And they count more than pigs, chickens, and cows.

Enter Peter Singer 13.09.2018

“Speciesism” A prejudice or bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of other species

“Speciesism” Differential treatment on the bases of species is as arbitrary as basing it on race or sex

Is Specieism Really Arbitrary?

Intelligence/Language and "Marginal" Cases Do higher primates and dolphins deserve to be treated better than the mentally handicapped? If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose?

Equality is a moral ideal, not a statement of fact

Equality of What?

Equal Consideration of Interests You mean the stuff that you put on your internet dating profile?

Equal Consideration of Interests The question is not 'Can they reason?' nor: 'Can they talk?' but: 'Can they suffer?' --Jeremy Bentham

Equal Consideration of Interests

Equal Consideration of Interests

Equal Consideration of Interests Based on the capacity to suffer. "So, the limit of sentience is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others."

Equal Consideration of Interests Does not mean equal treatment, since there are difference in capacity to suffer (it’s ok to call a pig fat, but not a person) But, since many nonhuman sentient creatures have the capacity to suffer, they are included just as much as humans in our equal consideration of interests

Equal Consideration of Interests

Equal Consideration of Interests

Equal Consideration of Interests

Which Normative Ethical Theory is at Play Here? Virtue Consequentialism Kantian Deontology Egoism Consequentialism Virtue Ethics

Which Normative Ethical Theory is at Play Here? Virtue Consequentialism Kantian Deontology Egoism Consequentialism Virtue Ethics

Any differences at all? Norcross claims that there is no morally relevant differences between Fred and the millions of meat-eaters who purchase and consume factory-farmed meat while aware of the suffering and deprivation involved. Is this correct? Can we think of any morally relevant differences that Norcross misses?

Questions to Consider for Next Time If we take Norcross and Singer seriously, what are the practical implications? Is it possible to be an ethical omnivore? Does virtue ethics give us a definitive answer on what to eat? If so, what is that answer? If not, does it give us any guidance at all?