Animal Rights 4 philosophers' views on killing animals for food

[Second Summer]

"If a cow is killed that will make it possible for another cow to come into existence who will have a good life, and if the first cow were not killed it would not be possible for the other cow to come into existence.

"So yes, this cow standing in front of us will lose the rest of her life, but that loss is replaced by bringing the other cow into existence and the other cow will also have that happy life.

More: Can we justify killing animals for food? - BBC News (26. October 2015)

This is from a BBC Radio 4 programme called Analysis. The whole programme is available from here (UK only, I think):
BBC Radio 4 - Analysis, Killing Cows

I think some of Peter Singer's thinking in this article is somewhat flawed. If we follow this line of thinking, it sounds like we could be doing moral good simply by "creating" more and more cows. Or humans. Maybe this is how the Duggars think?

I mostly agree with the other three philosophers here, I think.

 

[Andy_T]

Are these some excerpts from a much longer program? They seem like isolated discussion items to me.

I completely disagree with Elizabeth Harman's quote:

"If you buy or eat meat, you're doing something that plays some kind of causal role in meat production, but it's a very removed causal role, so it's not plausible that any particular animal suffering depends on whether you make a particular purchase. So in that way you don't have any particular bit of animal suffering or death on your head for that instance of meat eating.

What kind of reasoning is that?
This animal from which the pack of steaks that I see here in the supermarket was taken is already dead, so it is fine for me to buy it?
Earlier, the butcher decided he was up to kill a few cows, and when he was done with it, he thought he might as well sell the meat, given that the animal was already dead, so this is how the steaks ended up in the supermarket?

I am not a philosopher myself, but I can not see how this argument will hold up to closer scrutiny.

 

[Second Summer]

Are these some excerpts from a much longer program? They seem like isolated discussion items to me.

Yes, I suspect that is true. I haven't listened to the whole program.

I completely disagree with Elizabeth Harman's quote:



What kind of reasoning is that?
This animal from which the pack of steaks that I see here in the supermarket was taken is already dead, so it is fine for me to buy it?
Earlier, the butcher decided he was up to kill a few cows, and when he was done with it, he thought he might as well sell the meat, given that the animal was already dead, so this is how the steaks ended up in the supermarket?

I am not a philosopher myself, but I can not see how this argument will hold up to closer scrutiny.

I think what she says is correct, although there is more to be said about this person's culpability. Note that she says 'particular' this and that. This person can still have a more general, shared culpability for the killing of cows, even if they are not directly culpable for the death of the cow whose body parts they are eating.

 

[Andy_T]

To me, it seems a bit like the meat eater gets to conveniently weasle out of the culpability.

"Yes, I do eat meat, but I have only very little to do with animals getting killed"...

... think about a roast chicken. You definitely have a very direct relationship between the person wanting to eat a chicken dinner and the chicken losing his or her life, although they are of course separated in time.

 

[Tom L.]

I found myself agreeing most with Jeff MacMahan, but Gary Comstock's article about learning in cows was very interesting, even though I know the generally-held opinions of people about cows don't do the cows justice.

Peter Singer has lots of ideas, some of which I agree with and others not... but I didn't get his argument that when you kill one cow, another can be born and get to experience life. I'm eternally grateful to my parents and grandparents, and am glad I was conceived and born- but before I was, there was no "me" to be deprived of existence- so it's not as if anyone who doesn't procreate like the Duggars has failed as many potential children as the Duggars have.

 

[Blobbenstein]

To me, it seems a bit like the meat eater gets to conveniently weasle out of the culpability.

"Yes, I do eat meat, but I have only very little to do with animals getting killed"...

... think about a roast chicken. You definitely have a very direct relationship between the person wanting to eat a chicken dinner and the chicken losing his or her life, although they are of course separated in time.

yes, a hitman could run his business by getting a customer to pay for his last hit, and then the customer would get a freebe whereby the hitman would kill someone for that customer......all very moral...the customer is not responsible for anyone's murder..