Rocio asked:

What are some of the common responses to the Utilitarian analysis of animal cruelty? (e.g. Peter
Singer's classic Animal Liberation). If it is an undeniable fact that animals suffer, and eating animals is
unnecessary (at least for developed nations) then why would anyone be justified ethically to eat
meat?

============

As far as I understand them, Peter Singer's arguments against eating meat are based on the
utilitarian principle that ethical actions are those which create the most utility (pleasure, happiness
etc.). Since the wholesale slaughter of animals obviously does not increase the sum total of
happiness in the world, then this practice is unethical. Singer may also be understood as working
from a negative utilitarian position. In other words, the morally correct action is that which reduces the
total amount of suffering in the world. Again, abolishing the slaughter of millions of animals would,
from this perspective, seem like the moral course of action. Suffering and distress are real
phenomena which all sentient beings are capable of experiencing. To claim that human suffering is
more real or should be given more consideration in making moral decisions is, according to Singer,
'speciesist'.

The main challenges to Singer's ideas come from a variety of positions. Some are general arguments
used by opponents of utilitarianism as an ethical theory, and some are specifically aimed at Singer's
ideas. I will examine both types here:

General criticisms of utilitarianism as an ethical theory

Can utility be measured? One major problem with utilitarianism is that moral agents (those who carry
out moral or immoral acts) are required to calculate the total amount of utility produced with each
action. When we take into consideration just how difficult this calculation/ prediction really is,
utilitarianism ceases to be a practical ethical approach. And now that Singer has made us aware that
the sensations of non-human animals are to be included in this calculation, the job gets several times
more complicated. Of course, Singer could respond by admitting that we can perhaps never calculate
the exact amount of utility produced, but that it is also fairly obvious that the mass slaughter of
animals does cause real distress of a scale that outweighs any happiness produced from the eating
of the meat.

Could utilitarianism sanction "unjust" actions? A very common argument levelled against the utilitarian
approach is that its insistence on looking only to the total amount of utility produced endorses all
kinds of actions that seem intuitively to be unethical. For example, homeless people with no family or
friends could be secretly snatched from the street, killed and their organs donated to save the lives of
ten people who are in desperate need of new organs. On a strictly utilitarian basis this type of action
is morally justified. The loss of one unit capable of experiencing happiness (the homeless person) is
outweighed by the happiness gained by the ten ill people and their families as the spare organs
become available. Our "common sense" morality tells us that there is something wrong with this type
of action. Because of these unattractive possibilities, utilitarianism seems to be inadequate as a guide
to morality. If this is the case, then Singer cannot use utilitarianism as a guide to our interaction with
non-human animals.

What about rights and duties? The above criticism can be used to suggest that there are some other
moral principles that are more acceptable than utilitarianism. Because of the problems with looking to
the consequences and viewing utility as the only important consequence, other thinkers have argued
that humans have duties towards each other (and perhaps the natural world) or that humans (and
some animals) have rights. Such ideas have the advantage of avoiding the difficulties of utilitarianism.
It would be possible to claim that humans have a duty to treat animals with respect and so claim that
eating meat is morally wrong. It may also be claimed that animals have a right not to be eaten. The
main problems that face these ideas are in the attempt to rationally justify them. Why should animals
be treated with respect? Why should animals have rights? Which animals?

Specific criticisms of Singer's ideas

One specific criticism against Singer's ideas comes from what can be very loosely described as the
"Deep Ecology" movement. This philosophical position is one that attempts to locate intrinsic value in
nature. In other words, deep ecology wants to show that nature (including non-human animals) is
morally valuable in its own right. A leopard is valuable not because humans find it very beautiful to
look at, not because it is an endangered species, but simply because it is a leopard. Its value exists
independently of any pleasure or benefit it provides to humans and, perhaps more controversially, its
value exists even in the absence of a human to value it. This perspective sees Singer's utilitarianism
as a philosophy that ignores the intrinsic value of animals. It only deals with those beings physically
capable of suffering. All non-sentient creatures are disregarded. Non-human animals have a moral
relevance only if they are capable of suffering. It is also worth noting that Singer's utilitarianism would
sanction the suffering of a small number of non-human animals if the overall total of utility were
increased. For deep ecologists, this is simply not good enough. They argue that Singer's
utilitarianism, because of its failure to recognise the intrinsic value of non-human animals,
perpetuates the very same human-centred worldview that encourages the exploitation and
degradation of the non-human world.

The deep ecologists do have a point here. Singer's utilitarian approach, based on the assumption that
suffering is to be avoided, doesn't necessarily have to lead to vegetarianism. Imagine a
slaughterhouse where all the animals were unaware of their imminent death (and so were not
distressed), and where death was completely pain free (assuming this could be proven). It would be
very difficult for Singer to condemn this.

Some deep ecologists also question Singer's (and others) idea that animal liberation is a good idea.
Most deep ecologists view the stability, diversity and beauty of the ecosystem as the goal of ethics.
Humans ought to act in ways that promote this goal. Releasing all the captive farm animals and
abolishing the practice of eating meat would almost certainly upset the fragile balance of an already
damaged ecosystem. For these thinkers, mass animal liberation is unethical.

There is also an extreme position with the very impressive title of biocentric egalitarianism.This
position states that anything that is alive should be treated with equal moral consideration. In its
extreme and perhaps somewhat caricatured form, this position would argue that a blade of grass
should be given the same moral consideration as a leopard or a human. From this perspective,
Singer's ideas are not radical enough.

Simon Drew