Application of Theories: A Case Study of Vegetarianism

In deontology, the place of animals has always been a point of discussion. Originally, Kant suggested that we had an indirect duty to be kind towards animals, as being cruel to animals indicated the potential to eventually be cruel to human beings. Of course, this very anthropocentric (human-focused), view has been altered a lot since his time by contemporary deontologists. In a basic summary, one of the key rules in deontology is to never treat rational beings as mere means to an end. That is, we should never use others as only tools for our purposes, wishes, pleasures or desires. This has been revised as any being that is a “subject of a life” should never be treated as a means to an end. The subject of life refers to those who have perception, memory, feelings of pleasure and pain, desires, and goals. Following this account, animals fit the subject of a life standard, and thus, should never be used as a means to an end. Eating them seems to suggest that humans are using them for mere palatal pleasures. It should be made clear here that one never treats another as mere means, which means that if someone gives me consent, I can make use of them or their resources. However, animals are unable to consent to our treatment of them.

As mentioned in the previous page, deontologists are concerned with strict rules. Accordingly, they are also big proponents of ‘rights’ theories. Because most animals that we eat are subjects-of-a-life, they have equal moral value to other beings who are also subjects-of-a-life, like humans. Following this, they also deserve to have equal moral rights. If animals deserve moral rights, many basic rules that apply to humans apply to them as well, like the right to life, or the right to not be used only as means. Thus, we must not kill them or use them. Because they adhere to strict rules, most deontologists are what is referred to as “abolitionists.” Abolitionists call for complete cessation of all animal use for human purposes in order to respect the moral rights of these animals, which starts with never using them as a means. These uses include: trapping and hunting them, experimenting on them, having them as pets, and of course farming and eating them. Following this line of argument, it is wrong to eat animals under deontology.

Consequentialism also has a long history of defending animals. There is a very famous quote by one of the OG consequentialists that follows: “The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”. This quote demonstrates that what makes animals worthy of moral consideration is their sentience. Consequentialists traditionally adopt the view that the interest and well-being of animals merit equal consideration as to humans'. Just like we do not want humans to suffer, for instance, we would equally not want animals to suffer. In the case on eating animals, the consequentialists focus on the process of farming them. Factory farming notoriously results in the net negative well-being of animals. Consider the close-quarter living situations, the babies taken away from the mothers, getting debeaked and declawed, their legs breaking due to the fast growth rates… All of this causes the animals in questions to stress, have terrible lives of suffering, and eventually die. It seems here that their interests and wellbeing are not as equally considered as humans. A similar treatment to a fellow human would surely land one in prison. Because of this net negative wellbeing, the consequentialists are against factory farming. Accordingly, most are also against meat consumption.

​

Virtue Ethicists follow a very similar practical conclusion to consequentialists, and to some degree, the deontologists. However, they use different grounds to achieve these conclusions. Remember that virtue ethicists concern themselves with virtues (good character traits) and vice (bad character traits). Because of this, the virtue ethicists would ask themselves regarding meat consumption: Is it a practice that the virtuous would take part in? It has been established through the consequentialist account that there is so much suffering happening in factory farming. One of the most famous virtue ethicist views on vegetarianism (see references below) follows the footsteps of this consequentialist account: A virtuous person, cannot ignore this amount of suffering, or cruelty. They would follow the route of compassion. Accordingly, the virtue ethicist would choose to be a vegetarian. Naturally, this line of argument only applies to people who do not need meat to survive. One cannot judge some people in Africa, who only eat food they can get through aid, for lacking compassion or for being callous because they eat meat. However, as people who can have access to books that these theories are written on or this website are probably not ones that are in that position, it does apply to us. Temperance, another trait valued by the virtue ethicists, would require us, the privileged enough folk who can pick out what they eat, to ignore the pleasure we might get by eating meat to exercise other virtues, like compassion. For the virtue ethicists, going against temperance and ignoring compassion, leads one to a path of self-indulgence and/or greed, which are vices to be avoided. A principle that is often adopted by virtue ethicists is the principle, "Make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support for institutions or practices that cause or support unnecessary harm.(3c)" Another vital recommendation from these philosophers is that we must be honest about our consumption choices to people around us, to not offend anyone who might be cooking for us. Otherwise, we might seem ungrateful when they cook meat for us, and we deny it. Ultimately, however, the virtue ethicists conclude that the practices that create meat are cruel and callous, thus a virtuous person who is compassionate, must not party to them.