This was a great article
to read as we wrap up the second and third sections of the class because it
does a good job of summarizing many of the arguments we've already seen
regarding what ethical treatment (if any) we owe to animals. The majority
of these are brought up in the section titled "Unsound Defenses of Factory
Farming," where Singer reminds us of why the three arguments are invalid:
- Argument: Animals don't treat us well, so why should we
treat them well?
Rebuttal: Babies don't treat us well, either, but we still have ethical obligations to them. - Argument: The Benjamin Franklin defense.
Rebuttal: The Franklin defense is a form of ethical naturalism ("ethics for dummies", as Professor Grady called it) - Argument: Sacrificing animals is necessary to providing
for human well-being.
Rebuttal: There are alternatives we could use that certainly wouldn't require factory farming, and likely wouldn't require the consumption of any meat at all.
If none of these arguments are
valid, then we are left with the question of what (if anything) does entitle
us to eat meat. Singer says that the most convincing arguments for eating meat
come from those who most adamantly oppose factory farming. Even with today’s most popular foodies, such
as Michael Pollan, however, Singer raises some important objections. The last
section of the article seems to suggest that the only unquestionably ethically
sound way to eat meat is through dumpster diving. Some of the dumpster divers argue that dumpstering,
or “freeganism” is the only way to entirely remove oneself from the industrial food
system and its ethical dilemmas. It’s a
form of “recycling” that they say is the lowest impact type of
consumption. Although I am drawn to the
idea as a realistic way of coping with the modern food industry, I think it
holds little value as a basis for our food ethics. Contrary to what Tim and Shane say, “freeganism”
isn’t removing them from the industrial food system at all, but rather is
completely dependent upon that system and the waste it produces. Rather than “recycling” our food, shouldn’t
we just change to a system that produces less excess and higher quality to
begin with?
No comments:
Post a Comment