Of course, this argument is correct. But here is my sincere question:
Does it matter?
People have had these philosophical arguments at least since Peter Singer's original "Animal Liberation" article. And meat-eating has gone up and up and up. EA embraced the issue, and meat-eating has gone up and up and up. Climate change gets worse and meat-eating goes up and up and up. Even in Germany, where it has gone down a bit, each German is eating MORE factory-farmed animals.
Even the first poster here -- your own blog reader who is against factory farming for selfish reasons -- doesn't take philosophy seriously.
The question isn't: is it wrong? The question is: what can we do differently to change things?
Look. The problem with eating meat is not that one must belief trivial benefits outweigh incomprehensible animal siffering. That's easy enough to believe, just set the radius of your moral circle to between 8.4 and 10.6.
The TKO is what you say in the last part of your article. Eating meat is terrible for yourself, and, even worse, terrible for the planet. Climate Change, Superbugs, etc.
When one factor in how removing those costs would benefit society, eating meat in factory farms is basically blown out of the water. At worst any real and substantial benefits of meat can still be gained by reducing its consumption massively outside the factory farm context.
All the stuff about animal suffering is just utilitarian "total utility!!! Moral Circle!!! holocaust x1000!!!" grandstanding.
Of course, this argument is correct. But here is my sincere question:
Does it matter?
People have had these philosophical arguments at least since Peter Singer's original "Animal Liberation" article. And meat-eating has gone up and up and up. EA embraced the issue, and meat-eating has gone up and up and up. Climate change gets worse and meat-eating goes up and up and up. Even in Germany, where it has gone down a bit, each German is eating MORE factory-farmed animals.
Even the first poster here -- your own blog reader who is against factory farming for selfish reasons -- doesn't take philosophy seriously.
The question isn't: is it wrong? The question is: what can we do differently to change things?
https://www.onestepforanimals.org/about.html
Look. The problem with eating meat is not that one must belief trivial benefits outweigh incomprehensible animal siffering. That's easy enough to believe, just set the radius of your moral circle to between 8.4 and 10.6.
The TKO is what you say in the last part of your article. Eating meat is terrible for yourself, and, even worse, terrible for the planet. Climate Change, Superbugs, etc.
When one factor in how removing those costs would benefit society, eating meat in factory farms is basically blown out of the water. At worst any real and substantial benefits of meat can still be gained by reducing its consumption massively outside the factory farm context.
All the stuff about animal suffering is just utilitarian "total utility!!! Moral Circle!!! holocaust x1000!!!" grandstanding.