Madison Rish

5/14/17

Dr. Williams

Principle of Ethics

Utilitarians and Vegans Unite

During a very sensitive and controversial presidential race and after the

outcome, marches and riots have been the norm of retaliation against the current

president’s lack of treating U.S. citizens equally. The race had another aspect to

consider when it comes to the progress of equality in the United States—the

possibility of a female president. Hillary Clinton was an image to show the

progression of equality of the sexes but she also represented a first representation

for animal rights as a presidential candidate. This campaign shows Clinton to be a

utilitarian. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which defines a morally right action as

one that promotes the greatest amount of possible happiness (interests, pleasures,

satisfactions, preferences) and the least amount of pain. It aims to maximize the

overall good for all those affected.

Her husband Bill Clinton has been vegan for seven years now because of his

health and that would ultimately affect how she views other aspects of her

campaign—including environmental degradation. Trump ignores the idea of global

warming while Clinton profusely advocates for less exploitation of the earth. This

ethical framework of utilitarianism tells us to consider the consequences of any

particular action. At the end of the day, we want to maximize the good for the

1

greatest number. I will argue that utilitarians have an obligation to be vegans for the

purpose of promoting the most units of happiness—through the animals saved and

the preservation of the earth for humans.

If the number of animals slaughtered outnumber the number of meat

consumers, a utilitarian cannot choose the lesser units of happiness. “Each year in

the United States, approximately 11 billion animals are raised and killed for meat,

eggs, and milk” (Humane Society of the USA, 348). There are 315 million

Americans currently, which is a dismal percentage for a utilitarian to consider being

a meat eater. In terms of the mistreatment of the overwhelming amount of animals,

“These farm animals—sentient, complex, and capable of feeling pain and

frustration, joy and excitement—are viewed by industrialized agriculture as

commodities and suffer myriad assaults to their physical, mental, and emotional

well-being, typically denied the ability to engage in their species-specific behavioral

needs” (348). Factory farming promotes the suffering of these beings and doesn’t

consider their happiness as they’re tortured and killed.

German philosopher Friedrich Engels shows why utilitarians are designed to

go against this suffering with his lists of beliefs, “(p2) A world with less unnecessary

suffering is better than a world with more unnecessary suffering” (Engel, 859). He

insinuates in his footnote that unnecessary suffering means that the situation

outweighs the good of the situation. He also says that “(p5) A morally good person

will take steps to make the world a better place and even stronger steps to avoid

making the world a worse place… (p6) Even a ‘minimally decent person/ would take

2

steps to help reduce the amount of unnecessary pain and suffering in the world,”

which would be hypocritical if utilitarians didn’t promote the well-being of billions of

animals that are suffering through the politics of food companies (Engel, 860).

Though there are critics that state that a human’s amount of happiness is

worth more than a farm animal’s amount of happiness. Many critics justify this by

proclaiming the distinction between humans and other animals comes from the

ability to reason and to have moral thinking. Helene Guldberg Ph.D. states that

“Human beings have something that no other animal has: an ability to participate in

a collective cognition. Because we, as individuals, are able to draw on the collective

knowledge of humanity, in a way no animal can, our individual abilities go way

beyond what evolution has endowed us with. Our species is no longer constrained

by our biology” and that there is “A small difference in our innate abilities led to a

unique connection between human minds - allowing us to learn through imitation

and collaboration - leading to cumulative cultural evolution and the transformation of

the human mind” (Only Humans Have Morality, Not Animals, Psychology Today, 18

June 2011).

But, utilitarians believe that both animals and humans contain one unit of

happiness each. Both species have the ability to feel and suffer. Utilitarian Jeremy

Bentham has been advocating for this equal treatment since the 18th century and is

quoted saying,

"The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those

rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of

3

tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin

is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the

caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the

number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum,

are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same

fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of

reason, or perhaps, the faculty for discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is

beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal,

than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose they

were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason?

nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? " (Singer, 55).

Though this equality is long from becoming the social norm, many present

day utilitarians are quickly defining their terms on this topic. Utilitarian Peter Singer

does state in his piece, All Animals Are Equal, that “The extension of the basic

principle of equality from one group to another does not imply that we must treat

both groups in exactly the same way” and that “The basic principle of equality does

not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration. Equal

consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment” (52). Singer also

believes that “It is an implication of this principle of equality that our concern for

others and our readiness to consider their interest ought not to depend on what they

are like or on what abilities they may possess” (54).

4

If one of the implications of a utilitarian is to promote the most units of

happiness, they would be required to be vegans for the sake of conserving the earth

for the quality of human life and happiness. The factory farming businesses pollute

the earth. Mark Bittman’s article in the New York Times states that “These

assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water

supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing

amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction

of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests” (1).

Also according to a well documented Worldwatch report, evidence

specifically “shows that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least

32,564 million tons of CO2e per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG

emissions” (Goodland and Anhang, 11). This percentage outnumbers the entirety of

the emissions released from the transportation industry.

5

Figure 1. Jones, Luke. "Cowspiracy The Sustainability Secret"

6

Friedrich Engels states in his lists of the beliefs of the public that “(p15) We

have a duty to help preserve the environment for future generations” and that “(p16)

One ought to minimize one’s contribution toward environmental degradation,”

because it is in the best interests to take care of the earth for the continuance of

human happiness (861). Utilitarians should be concerned of the welfare of the

planet because of its immediate impact on the welfare of humans and their units of

happiness.

But critics, like Joel Salatin, believe that there is another solution to this

environmental degradation issue. Salatin stated in his piece Animal Welfare that,

“Whatever environmental degradation, human health problems, or animal welfare issues

impugn meat and poultry consumption can be rectified and turned into positives with a

fundamentally different production style” (389). They promote a take over of free-range

farming or the term they like to promote “humane-meat”. The practice requires less

industry involved and allows the animals to roam and participate in activities they

couldn’t if they were in tight cramped areas in factory farms. Because of their

roaming abilities, they intake grass which is what their bodies were made to

process. No artificial hormones are in these animals and the businesses are usually

local.

However, Free-range, pasture-fed animals would require even more land on

which to feed. Brian Walsh from TIMES states that, “Some 40% of the world’s land

surface is used for the purposes of keeping all 7 billion of us fed — albeit some of

us, of course, more than others. And the vast majority of that land — about 30% of

7

the word’s total ice-free surface — is used not to raise grains, fruits and vegetables

that are directly fed to human beings, but to support the chickens, pigs and cattle

that we eventually eat” (“The Triple Whopper Environmental Impact of Global Meat

Production”). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

commented that, “…herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about 20

percent of pastures considered as degraded through overgrazing, compaction and

erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands where inappropriate policies and

inadequate livestock management contribute to advancing desertification” and this

practice of “Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles, reducing replenishment

of above and below ground water resources” (Land and water). The organization

also noted that, “Meat and dairy animals now account for about 20 percent of all

terrestrial animal biomass. Livestock’s presence in vast tracts of land and its

demand for feed crops also contribute to biodiversity loss; 15 out of 24 important

ecosystem services are assessed as in decline, with livestock identified as a culprit”

(Land and water). This idea of “free-range” and “humane” meat consumption is an

oxymoron in of itself by definition because of its phrasing of “humane slaughter”.

Free range is not an option when considering the lack of land that the U.S. has to

even feed itself on an increasingly meat centered diet. If the

In terms of preservation of the quality of human life, the only way to ensure a

future is through a vegan diet. Utilitarians cannot ignore the glaring facts of the

overwhelming suffering that exists in the food industry. If utilitarians focus their

energy into promoting the most units of happiness, they must be vegans. This

8

lifestyle will promote the most units of happiness with both farm animals and

humans.

9

Works Cited

Bittman, Mark. “Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler”. New York Times (2008), 1, 4.

FAO Newsroom. “Livestock a major threat to environment. Remedies urgently

needed”. 29 November 2006.

Guldberg, Helene. Ph.D. “Only Humans Have Morality, Not Animals”. Psychology

Today. Jun. 18, 2011.

Humane Society of the United States, “An HSUS Report: The Welfare of Animals in

the Meat, Egg, and Dairy Industries”

Salatin, Joel. “Animal Welfare”. Everything I Want to Do is Illegal: War Stories

From the Local Food Front (Swoope, VA: Polyface, 2011).

Singer, Peter. “All Animals Are Equal”. Earth Ethics: Introductory Reading on

Animal

Rights and Environmental Ethics. James P. Sterba, ed. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

(2000): 51-60.

Walsh, Bryan. “The Triple Whopper Environmental Impact of Global Meat

Production”. Time. Dec. 16, 2013.

10