Animal Ethics

From my current (and very beginner) understanding of animal ethics, there are two main schools of thought on animal ethics. Peter Singer has adapted Benthem and Mill’s utilitarianism to include animals. Christine Korsgaard (great name) has extended Kant’s ethics.

In utilitarianism, the goal is to reduce suffering and increase happiness. It is outcome orientated, and is easy to follow. Do things that increase well-being. Don’t do things that increase suffering. It’s is obvious where factory farmed meat is terrible under these ethics. But if the animal has a happy life when raised and humanely killed, that could be allowed.

In Kantian ethics, the goal is to not use anyone purely as a means, but also an ends. In other words, don’t use people for your own benefit, unless you have in the mind the well-being of them. In the animal world, having any animal being raised to be eaten, is basically enslaving them for your own good. The animals were brought in this life to be used.

I agree with both of those, and would like to add another train of thought. What makes us human is be able to reason and think about things. When we give into basic pleasures such as food, we haven’t put much thought into it. Transcendence is forgoing some bodily pleasure in favor of thoughtfulness. That is celebrating what it means to be Human.