Meat
Fake Barn Country’s recent post, The Meat I (Mostly) Don’t Eat, considers the philosophical case for being vegetarian, and questions whether the utilitarian claim of preserving animal life stands.
On the bus on the way back, I chatted to Derek about what I took to be an excellent reason for vegetarianism: as a result of one’s vegetarianism, fewer creatures would suffer and be killed. But then Derek, himself Boca burger connoisseur, retorted that the meat supply is not sensitive enough to tiny changes in demand for my not eating meat to make any difference to the number of animals that suffer and die.
I find this highly dubious. (Perhaps mistakenly?) I can imagine a reductio ad absurdum for (AT), for if (AT) still applies after one of the “meat-eating population” turns vegetarian, then at some point as more and more people turn vegetarian, the minute quantity of meat being consumed by the meat-eating population to “compensate for [each person] not eating any” will turn into a quantity so great that even the appalling appetites of some meat eaters (Hi, Simon) couldn’t compensate for it. At some point, whether the sample be large or small, the supply of meat will be too great a burden for the meat-eaters to bear. At this point, the meat would likely be wasted, perhaps leading to smaller quantities of meat being procured next time around.
I find (DT) similarly problematic. As more and more of the meat-eating population turned vegetarian, large quantities of meat will not be needed. In the short term, this might lead to
the case that the same number of animals dies, and more meat is wasted.
But I suspect the market for meat would adjust itself to this inefficiency, rather than continue wasting meat indefinitely. While my singular actions may, on a small scale, or short term, cause meat to be wasted, I don’t buy the argument when applied in aggregate.
Have I got this completely wrong? Tell me how.
Comments
but insofar as the wasting meat by becoming veg, i dont buy it in the least.
wouldn’t those purchasing meat from the market purchase the amount they believe is needed and will be eaten? Even if there is only one vegitarian in the world, his parents will buy less meat. If less chicken is purchased, the grocery stores will need to order less from purdue, so then purdue will be forced to produce less meat in order to keep its budget balanced. The meat won’t be wasted because it will be purchased by some meat eater, but more product will remain in the store, making stores order less, forcing farms to produce less. So nothing is waisted and less animals will be raised to slaughter.
this is why philosophy majors need to take econ.
Posted by: shuli on May 15th, 2004 1:07 PMconsumer prefrense being one of the determinants of demand, would dictate that as preferense for meat dropped, so would supply to compensate. (actual demand and actual supply) This is presuming our government doesn’t step in to save the poor beef producers by subsidising their production cough like the airlines.
anders (vegitarian all my life)
Posted by: Anders on May 15th, 2004 10:58 PMThere may be a lot of wasted meat if a massive number of people suddenly switched to vegetarianism - but that is unlikely.
If the masses begin to shift to less and less meat, the demand will drop and the production will have to follow suit (unless subsidized as mentioned by another comment here - but even that would only continue for a while).
The truth is, we would not need to keep such large numbers of animals, and, in fact - if everyone (or most) ate veggies rather than meat and the market was allowed to do as is normally does - some species of animal would no longer be beneficial to us and would not survive in the wild. If our fields were being used for veggies, there is no real need to have cows wandering around !
True, there may be less suffering - but there may be no need to have them exist apart from pets and curiosities.
By the way, if we look at animals in the wild - roaming free - they aren’t exactly having happy lives! The mistaken idea that if we didn’t eat animals they would suddenly have a beautiful, free, loving, etc. etc. life is humourous.
I think being a vegetarian is great - if it works for you; however, the argument that animals would somehow be better off is questionable (although some might be).
ron,
first, there are many reasons to turn veggie, and not all include motives against cruelty to animals.
second, some wild cows’ lives are better than some domesticated cows’ lives.
third, those who are vegetarian are trying to improve our treatment of animals, not their lives. the world is neither just nor fair but that does not stop humans from attempting to enforce some kind of justice. because we have control over our actions and can realize the implications of those actions, we have a duty to other animals and the world to act without malignity or disregard. we are duty bound to act in the reverse. vegetarians are not conservationists by definition. some may have these tendancies, but it is believed that the slaughtered cow is worse off than the cow that never existed.
it’s not a questionable argument, you just don’t understand what the argument is.
Posted by: shuli on May 19th, 2004 2:14 PMThe argument, I apparently don’t understand (a bit condescending and incorrect of you) is pasted below from above:
excellent reason for vegetarianism: as a result of one’s vegetarianism, fewer creatures would suffer and be killed.
Your argument that better to have not lived than lived and be slaughtered may hold some water - but it isn’t complete. Our duty to other animals has not been adequately determined - in fact - many still believe we have dominion and should do as we please (although I am not one of them). Our treatment of animals may or may not improve with vegetarianism - my argument above is that some people would see no need to keep certain types and varieties (a problem in agriculture, too) alive without any profit base.
There are other reasons to be a vegetarian - although most are speculative at best and not proven. Most vegetarians do tend to feel somewhat morally superior - but most have never been on a farm nor have any first-hand experience dealing with animals other than their pet cat perhaps. (I see some people trying to make their dogs vegetarians now, too - talk about cruelty to animals!!)
Posted by: Ron on May 22nd, 2004 2:52 PM
I see this close to the argument for not voting for a third party: If you vote for a third party, and most of the country will vote either republican or democrat, then the majority votes for rep. or dem. will overshadow your one vote for third party. your one vote is ineffectual and therefore was ‘wasted’.
but what people over look in this argument is that you are not the only vegitarian (i’m lumping vegans in with veg as well, bare with me). once you have more than just you, the cumulative abstention from meat purchasing will impact the industry in some way such that it will have to compensate for the slump in demand by reducing its supply.
if half of the country voted libertarian and the other half was split between republican and democrat, then the third party vote would have affected the system and not have been ‘wasted’.
so your choice to not eat meat makes such a small impact that only when coupled with many others will any real change occurr.
or at least, that’s my understanding.
Posted by: shuli on May 15th, 2004 12:55 PM