Against the Personal Preference Diet

If our going-in belief is, “Meat-eating is morally acceptable as it is a personal decision,” this belief equates acceptable morality with personal preference: “I like to eat beef; therefore, it is acceptable to kill and eat cows.” This easily permits the equivalent expression, “I like to eat Soylent Green; therefore, it is acceptable to kill and eat people.”

However, if we use unnecessary suffering as our benchmark, we can easily defeat both arguments. We first grant that unnecessary suffering is bad. We then grant that the more unnecessary suffering our actions cause, the worse those actions are.

We know that eating animals causes suffering in at least one direct way and one indirect way.

Factory farming is a direct way in which animals suffer. Conditions in many large-scale meat production operations cause animals to suffer cramped quarters, little or no outdoor grazing ability, and inhumane slaughter.

An indirect way that meat production causes suffering is by diverting resources that could go to feed hungry people to instead feed animals that will in turn be used for human consumption. Giving grain to animals which will in turn be used to feed humans is often extremely inefficient. If we stopped this practice, more grain would be available to feed hungry people around the world.

One might make the argument that suffering-avoidance allows us to kill innocent humans so long as we do so without causing the victim any suffering. However, to live in such a world would inevitably lead to great anxiety as people with normally functioning brains do not want to die (or kill for that matter). Knowledge that it is socially acceptable to be killed at any time would likely cause great anxiety in people with normally functioning brains. This is undesirable in a world where humans’ prime objective is to reduce suffering. We also are probably hard-wired to act compassionately toward others.*

One might still argue that it is permissible to kill animals so long as it is done painlessly. It is easier, after all, to conceal an animal’s doom from that animal than it is to do so for a human. We know, however, that, so long as there are starving people on earth, grain will be better used in feeding those people than in feeding livestock in meat production. In the case of animal research, the research is currently justified by weighing potential benefit to society against the suffering experienced by the test subject. This would be upheld under suffering-avoidance philosophy.

In terms of abortion, we have reason to believe that when unwanted children are born, they grow to experience significantly greater personal hardships than wanted children and are more likely to burden society through criminal actions.* The cutoff would be tricky using suffering-avoidance as the basis. If we suppose that a child needs to be around the age of 1 year before s/he is able to experience fear at potentially being killed, then this might appear to allow for the killing of already-born babies. Societies in general are unlikely to allow abortion to that extent, though, as our aversion to killing our offspring and others’ offspring probably has deep evolutionary roots. The fact that ~90% of abortions take place in the first trimester and very few in the last trimester is perhaps further evidence of this. As it would likely cause many people great psychological stress if they knew that babies could be killed up to a year after birth, the suffering to those people would have to be weighed against the life of the baby.

One more important question would be where suffering avoidance philosophy would stand regarding people with disabilities. The utilitarian view might be that such a person might be more useful dead and “in parts” (say, as an organ donor) than alive. For instance, if such a person can die to ease the suffering of two otherwise healthy people, is that person’s death justifiable?

Once again, I think that the utilitarian answer would be, “yes — that person’s death would be justifiable.” But, here again, as with killing babies, we probably have strong evolutionary drives not to allow such “transactions” to take place.

Is the argument from evolution good, though? I don’t think so. If our knee-jerk argument against the idea of people giving up their organs is that it is “robotic” of us, then the argument is easily defeated by calling the alternative position “robotic” (i.e., “It is robotic of us not to harvest organs from one person to save the lives of two people.”) Why is one position “robotic” and the other “humane” or “organic”? This leaves us in very close to the same position as simply doing what we most prefer.

The utilitarian argument at least gives us clear guidance even if we might not be able to, by virtue of our evolutionary history, embrace every outcome.

Report: Number of Animals Killed In US Increases in 2010: “~10 billion land animals were raised and killed for food in the United States in 2010.”
Farm Animal Rights Movement
Do Chickens Suffer in Wire Cages?: “Dawkins explains that if hens kept all their lives on wire floors are suddenly given access to a floor of wood-shavings or peat, they have ‘an immediate and strong preference for these more natural floors over the wire ones, which is all they have known until then.’ “
United Poultry Concerns
The Human Cost of Animal Suffering: “The sheer volume, scale and rate of killing, the way the animals form a continuous stream rather than individual creatures, makes it clear the animals are seen as raw material.”
Timothy Pachirat
U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat: “Tracking food animal production from the feed trough to the dinner table, Pimentel found broiler chickens to be the most efficient use of fossil energy, and beef, the least. Chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1. (Lamb meat production is nearly as inefficient at 50:1, according to the ecologist’s analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. Other ratios range from 13:1 for turkey meat and 14:1 for milk protein to 17:1 for pork and 26:1 for eggs.)”
Cornell University Science News
Babies faces ‘make us want to care for them’: “Researchers have identified a part of the brain that becomes highly active within a seventh of a second when a person is shown a picture of an unfamiliar infant face.

They believe they have discovered the biological basis for the parental instinct….”
Nic Fleming, The Telegraph

Data Lacking on Abortion Method: “Overall, 88 percent of abortions are performed before the end of the 12th week of gestation — the first trimester. About 10 percent are done between weeks 13 and 20. About 1 percent are done at week 21 or later. A normal gestation period is 38 weeks, 40 weeks after the last menstrual period.”
David Brown, The Washington Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.