In my ethical system farm animals are food. One should provide them with proper care and minimize their suffering, but that’s as far as it goes. (Also, a happy organic free-range chicken tastes better than a pen-confined one.) Hopefully some day we will be able to grow tasty brainless meat in vats, just like we grow crops in the field, and the whole issue of ethics-based vegetarianism will be moot.
I can imagine a society where (some) humans are raised for food. In that case I would apply the same ethics: minimize suffering and work toward replacing them with a less controversial food source.
Why are animals food, though—just because that’s how we currently treat them? I think the status quo bias is obvious here. After all, you’d never want people to start farming humans, right? So why agree that it’s okay once it starts?
Could your argument have been used to justify slavery?
In my ethical system black people are slaves. One should provide them with proper care and minimize their suffering, but that’s as far as it goes. (Also, a happy well-treated black person picks more cotton than a beaten malnourished one.) Hopefully some day we will be able to develop automatic cotton pickers, just like we automate other tasks, and the whole issue of slavery will be moot.
Whatflavorof ‘why?’ are you after? The ‘flavor’ one seems most significant to me! It is also sufficient.
There is no problem with just not having an ethical problem with a behavior simply because you don’t currently have any problem with a behavior, like the behavior, do not wish to self modify your ethics and are not persuaded by the ability of someone else to find some similarity between the behavior in question and some other behavior that you do have an ethical problem with.
After all, you’d never want people to start farming humans, right? So why agree that it’s okay once it starts?
There are perfectly good circumstances to start farming animals, like when your survival depends on it. I suspect that there could be a similar situation with farming humans (or at least process them into Soylent Green). Other that that, I agree on the status quo bias.
Re slavery:
Yes, this obvious analogy occurred to me. I would feel more urgency to reevaluate my ethical system if I considered farm animals my equals. Your reasons for doing so may differ. Presumably the emancipation was in part based on that reason, in part on compassion or other reasons, I am not an expert in the subject matter.
Ethical/moral objections aside, initiating the practice of human farming wouldn’t be a logical or practical choice, as presumably farm-rearing humans would be just as energy-inefficient as farm-rearing livestock:
Animal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein while yielding animal protein that is only 1.4 times more nutritious for humans than the comparable amount of plant protein, according to the Cornell ecologist’s analysis.
Killing and eating excess humans in the process of reducing the world’s population to a sustainable level, on the other hand, might qualify as a logical use of resources.
Why are animals food, though—just because that’s how we currently treat them? I think the status quo bias is obvious here. After all, you’d never want people to start farming humans, right? So why agree that it’s okay once it starts?
Could your argument have been used to justify slavery?
Yours certainly could. It’s a fully general moral counterargument.
You have ethics that aren’t mine. You want to keep your ethics and not convert to mine. Other people have different ethics to me and also different ethics to you. You don’t approve of those other people keeping their evil ethics because they puppy kicking baby eating status quo loving slavers. Therefore, you should convert to my ethics.
Having a preference and keeping that preference isn’t a status quo bias. It’s the status quo.
In my ethical system farm animals are food. One should provide them with proper care and minimize their suffering, but that’s as far as it goes. (Also, a happy organic free-range chicken tastes better than a pen-confined one.) Hopefully some day we will be able to grow tasty brainless meat in vats, just like we grow crops in the field, and the whole issue of ethics-based vegetarianism will be moot.
I can imagine a society where (some) humans are raised for food. In that case I would apply the same ethics: minimize suffering and work toward replacing them with a less controversial food source.
Why are animals food, though—just because that’s how we currently treat them? I think the status quo bias is obvious here. After all, you’d never want people to start farming humans, right? So why agree that it’s okay once it starts?
Could your argument have been used to justify slavery?
What flavor of ‘why?’ are you after? The ‘flavor’ one seems most significant to me! It is also sufficient.
There is no problem with just not having an ethical problem with a behavior simply because you don’t currently have any problem with a behavior, like the behavior, do not wish to self modify your ethics and are not persuaded by the ability of someone else to find some similarity between the behavior in question and some other behavior that you do have an ethical problem with.
There are perfectly good circumstances to start farming animals, like when your survival depends on it. I suspect that there could be a similar situation with farming humans (or at least process them into Soylent Green). Other that that, I agree on the status quo bias.
Re slavery:
Yes, this obvious analogy occurred to me. I would feel more urgency to reevaluate my ethical system if I considered farm animals my equals. Your reasons for doing so may differ. Presumably the emancipation was in part based on that reason, in part on compassion or other reasons, I am not an expert in the subject matter.
Ethical/moral objections aside, initiating the practice of human farming wouldn’t be a logical or practical choice, as presumably farm-rearing humans would be just as energy-inefficient as farm-rearing livestock:
Killing and eating excess humans in the process of reducing the world’s population to a sustainable level, on the other hand, might qualify as a logical use of resources.
Yours certainly could. It’s a fully general moral counterargument.
You have ethics that aren’t mine. You want to keep your ethics and not convert to mine. Other people have different ethics to me and also different ethics to you. You don’t approve of those other people keeping their evil ethics because they puppy kicking baby eating status quo loving slavers. Therefore, you should convert to my ethics.
Having a preference and keeping that preference isn’t a status quo bias. It’s the status quo.
Hm.
It sounds like you would prefer growing brainless meat in vats to raising farm animals (e.g., you say “hopefully”). Can you clarify why?
Note the “minimize suffering” part.