sign in sign up
<<
Home , Animal ethics, Hunger (physiology), Killing of animals, Mylan Engel, Sentience

V

Vegetarianism . This entry explores both the non-anthropocentric and anthropocentric moral Jr. reasons for . The principal Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA non-anthropocentric for ethical vegetari- anism is direct moral concern for the welfare and well-being of the being eaten. The prin- Abstract cipal anthropocentric reasons for vegetarianism are (i) concern for the environment, (ii) concern Ethical vegetarians maintain that vegetarianism over global scarcity and the just distribution is morally required. The principal reasons offered of resources, and (iii) concern for future genera- in support of ethical vegetarianism are (i) concern tions. The entry begins with a brief historical look for the welfare and well-being of the animals at ethical vegetarianism and the moral status of being eaten, (ii) concern for the environment, animals. (iii) concern over global food scarcity and the just distribution of resources, and (iv) concern for future generations. Each of these reasons is Ethical Vegetarianism: A Historical explored in turn, starting with a historical look at Overview ethical vegetarianism and the moral status of animals. Ethical vegetarianism has a rich history dating back more than 2,500 years. Pythagoras (ca. 570–490 BCE) is one of the earliest known Keywords and most prominent proponents of vegetarianism. From what we know of his teachings as spelled Vegetarianism; ; Moral status; out by Ovid, Pythagoras offered at least four Environmentalism; ; Food security; moral reasons for refraining from . Global ; Future generations First, he maintained that eating meat requires the unnecessary , since nature provides bountiful -based alternatives that “require no bloodshed and no slaughter” Introduction (Walters and Portmess 1999, p. 16). Second, he insisted that killing animals dehumanizes Vegetarians refrain from . Ethical : “Oh, what a wicked thing it is for flesh vegetarians refrain from eating animals for moral to be the tomb of flesh, ... Must you destroy

# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 H. Ten Have (ed.), Encyclopedia of Global , DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_434-1 2 Vegetarianism another to satiate your greedy-gutted cravings?” have only instrumental , i.e., they have (Walters and Portmess 1999, p. 17). Third, he value only to the extent that they are of use for thought it wrong to kill animals for food, because rational creatures. Kant (1724–1804), too, they have done nothing to deserve it (Walters and followed in embracing the rationality Portmess 1999, pp. 17–18). Finally, because he criterion of moral considerability. For Kant, ani- believed that souls transmigrate into mals are not rational members of the kingdom of nonhuman animals, Pythagoras condemned eating ends, and so, the does not meat on the grounds that doing so might involve apply to them. Like Aquinas, Kant concluded that the murder of kindred souls: “So I warn you, lest animals only have instrumental value; they are murder brotherhood, I warn you by all the not ends in themselves but rather, mere means to priesthood in me, do not exile what may be kindred an end – that end being man. souls by slaughter. Blood should not nourish Descartes (1596–1650) took linguistic ability blood” (Walters and Portmess 1999, p. 19). to be the mark of mentality. Because he held that Plutarch of Chaeronea (ca. 56–120 CE) argued all nonhuman animals are incapable of using that humans are not naturally carnivorous language, Descartes concluded that all nonhuman (Walters and Portmess 1999, p. 29). He also animals are mindless machines – mere automata argued that animals are intrinsically valuable devoid of thought and reason. When coupled with and deserve moral consideration in their own the rationality criterion of moral considerability, right because they are sentient, intelligent crea- the Cartesian view of animals implies that ani- tures and, thus, should not be killed and eaten mals are bereft of morally significant interests. (Walters and Portmess 1999, p. 32). Porphyry Historically, Aristotelianism and Cartesianism (ca. 232–304 CE) held that justice requires that helped shape Western attitudes regarding the we do no harm to any being capable of being treatment of animals, including killing them for harmed, and since animals can be harmed, the food, for if animals are devoid of morally signif- do no harm must be extended to every icant interests, then killing them and eating them animated being (Walters and Portmess 1999, does not violate their interests. pp. 44–45). But not all modern philosophers were per- Aristotle (384–322 BCE) had quite a different suaded by the Aristotelian/Cartesian view of ani- view of our moral relationship with animals. He mals. Voltaire (1694–1778) appealed to maintained that every being that exists has a telos, neurophysiological evidence to challenge i.e., an ultimate purpose for existing. Aristotle Descartes’s claim that linguistic ability provides held that the purpose of the superior is to rule the only compelling evidence of mentality: “has over the inferior and the purpose of the inferior nature arranged all the means of in this is to serve the superior. He also held that the animal, so that it may not feel? Has it nerves in rational is superior to the irrational. Because he order to be impassible? Do not suppose this regarded animals as inferior irrational beings, impertinent contradiction in nature” (Regan and Aristotle concluded that the purpose of animals Singer 1989, p. 21). Voltaire also argued that is to serve the needs of rational man: tame animals animal behavior – such as nervous pacing or serve as food and as beasts of burden, and wild jumping for joy – often provides us with excellent animals serve as food and provide clothing and evidence of an animal’s current mental states. instruments (Regan and Singer 1989, pp. 6–7). (1711–1776) also rejected Carte- Aquinas (1225–1274) echoed Aristotle in sianism with respect to animals. He insisted that insisting that rationality is what makes a being no truth is more evident than that animals are worthy of moral consideration and respect. He endowed with thought and reason. Hume also maintained that only rational creatures are free thought it obvious that animals are not only capa- and autonomous, and only free and autonomous ble of experiencing and but also creatures have , i.e., value in and of capable of experiencing fear, anger, courage, themselves. Animals, being irrational creatures, and other . Vegetarianism 3

Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) argued that ani- • We observe significant anatomical and neuro- mals deserve direct moral consideration. He physiological similarity between humans and rejected the rationality criterion of moral many animals (including all mammals and considerability, insisting that when it comes to most vertebrates). the moral status of animals, the relevant question • Efferent and afferent nerves run throughout “is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, their bodies, including myelinated A-delta Can they suffer?” (Regan and Singer 1989, p. 26). fibers (the kind of fibers responsible for acute Like Bentham, Henry Salt (1851–1939) also “protective pain” in humans) and unmyelin- thought that the capacity to suffer is what makes ated C fibers (the kind of fibers responsible for a being worthy of moral consideration. Because “restorative pain” in humans). animals are capable of , Salt thought it • Endogenous serotonergic and pain- morally unjustifiable to cause them unnecessary control mechanisms are present in mammals, pain. He also thought it wrong to kill animals birds, and fish. [Why would organisms inca- unnecessarily. Since we can meet all of our nutri- pable of feeling pain have endogenous pain- tional needs with a vegetarian , Salt argued control systems?] that it is wrong “to breed and kill animals for • Analgesics and anesthetics cause animals to merely culinary purposes” (1886, p. 10). stop exhibiting pain behavior, presumably Many of these historical themes repeat them- because these substances prevent the pain selves in the contemporary debate over ethical itself in much the way they prevent pain in vegetarianism: What property or feature makes humans. a being worthy of moral consideration? Which • There is compelling experimental evidence beings deserve moral consideration, and how that the capacity to feel pain enhances survival much consideration are they owed? Are we justi- value in animals, based on the self-destructive fied in killing animals for food, when equally tendencies displayed by animals that have nutritious plant-based are readily avail- been surgically deafferented. able? Contemporary answers to these questions are addressed in what follows. In short, there is overwhelming evidence that mammals, birds, and fish can feel morally significant pain. Setting the Stage for the Contemporary Second, despite the scientific, philosophical, Debate and commonsense awareness that animals are conscious, sentient beings in their own right, Three factors play a critical role in the contem- farmed animals are regarded as commodities porary case for ethical vegetarianism. The first and are treated as if they were mere “production concerns , i.e., the capacity to suffer units” devoid of morally significant interests. The and/or experience pleasure or . There process of converting conscious, sentient animals is growing scientific and philosophical consensus into meat begins by forcibly impregnating female that many animals – certainly all vertebrates – are cows, pigs, , turkeys, ducks, emus, and conscious, sentient creatures that can feel pain . The resulting offspring are then typically and can suffer. The evidence for animal sentience housed intensively in inhospitable, massively parallels the evidence we have for thinking our overcrowded warehouses or sheds for the dura- fellow humans are capable of feeling pain: tion of their lives. For example, chickens are warehoused in sheds containing up to 100,000 • Animals manifest pain behavior, not just birds, where each bird is only allotted seven- reflex actions to noxious stimuli (protective tenths of a square foot of floor space. Since the pain) but subsequent pain-induced behavioral animals cannot move about freely in these modification caused by bodily damage overcrowded conditions, they are forced to (restorative pain). stand in their waste. The noxious ammonia 4 Vegetarianism fumes from the urine cause chronic lung and eye vegetarian diets are “healthful, nutritionally ade- irritation. In these unnatural conditions, the ani- quate, and provide health benefits in the preven- mals are prevented from satisfying even their tion and treatment of certain ” and are most basic instinctual urges (e.g., to nurse, “appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, stretch, move around, root, groom, build nests, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, rut, establish social orders, select mates, etc.), childhood, and adolescence” (Mangels which causes severe in the animals. The et al. 2003, p. 748). The health benefits of vege- stress, in turn, increases aggression. To prevent tarian diets are also highlighted in USDA’s Die- losses from aggression, the animals receive pre- tary Guidelines for Americans, 2010: “In emptive mutilations. For example, to prevent prospective studies of adults, compared to chickens and turkeys from pecking each other to non-vegetarian eating patterns, vegetarian-style death, the birds are “debeaked” using a scalding eating patterns have been associated with hot blade that slices through the highly sensitive improved health outcomes – lower levels of obe- horn of the beak. Other routine mutilations sity, a reduced risk of cardiovascular , and include toe removal, tail docking, branding, lower total mortality.” It is easy to eat a well- dehorning, ear tagging, ear clipping, teeth balanced, nutritionally complete vegetarian diet. pulling, and castration – all performed without No special food combining is necessary. All one anesthesia. Unanesthetized branding, dehorning, needs to do is eat sufficient calories centered ear tagging, ear clipping, and castration are stan- around the following four food groups: whole dard procedures on small-scale family farms, as (5+ servings/day), (3+ serv- well. The final stage in the “meat production” ings/day), (3+ servings/day), and process is slaughter. Some animals meet with (2+ servings/day). Anyone who eats the on-site slaughter, but most are shipped to slaugh- recommended daily servings of these four food terhouses without food or water and without ade- groups will be eating a nutritionally sound plant- quate protection from the elements. At the based diet (though vegans, who consume 100 % , the animals are hung upside plant-based diets, should include a reliable source down and are brought via conveyor to the slaugh- of B12 in their diets). Far from being risky, such a terer who slits their throats. In many cases (and all diet reduces one’s risk of heart disease, cancer, “ritual kill” cases), the animals are fully con- stroke, hypertension, , and diabetes scious throughout the entire ordeal (Engel 2000, (Mangels et al. 2003, p. 748). pp. 861–865). Worldwide, over 60 billion land animals are slaughtered for food each year. No other human activity results in more pain, suffer- Ethical Vegetarianism ing, frustration, and premature death than animal and Consideration for Animals agriculture. Third, there is no nutritional need to eat meat. The question at the heart of the ethical debate This fact should be obvious from the number of over vegetarianism is this: Are we justified in vegetarians worldwide. According to some esti- raising and killing animals for food, when equally mates, there are 375 million vegetarians world- nutritious plant-based food is readily available? wide. According to other estimates, there are Ethical vegetarians argue that the answer to this 400–500 million vegetarians in India alone. question is “no.” This section will explore three Even with the lowest estimates, there are hun- such arguments: (i) the utilitarian argument, dreds of millions of perfectly healthy vegetarians (ii) the deontological -based argument, worldwide. There is also scientific consensus on and (iii) the argument from moral consistency. the healthfulness of meat-free vegetarian diets. In The next section “Ethical Vegetarianism, Envi- their joint position paper on vegetarian diets, the ronmental Sustainability, and ” American Dietetic Association and the will explore three interrelated anthropocentric of Canada maintain that appropriately planned reasons for ethical vegetarianism. Vegetarianism 5

The Utilitarian Argument for Ethical must factor their suffering into our utilitarian cal- Vegetarianism culations. Is all of the pain that farmed animals (1975, 2011) defends ethical vege- suffer outweighed by some greater gain that could tarianism on preference utilitarian grounds. Prop- not be achieved in any other way? Eating meat is erly understood, preference not necessary for survival or health. What combines a principle of equality with a principle about pleasure? People do enjoy the of meat of utility maximization. The principle of equality and get pleasure from eating it. Does human gus- requires us to give equal consideration to the tatory pleasure justify raising and killing animals interests of every being having interests, regard- for food? Singer offers three compelling reasons less of race, gender, or species. The utility max- to think not. First, on any candid appraisal, it is imization principle requires us to act in ways that extremely doubtful that the fleeting pleasure maximize the satisfaction of interests of all those humans get from eating meat outweighs all of affected by our behavior. the pain, suffering, and misery farmed animals Singer argues that sentience is both necessary experience in the process of becoming that meat. and sufficient for possessing interests. It would be Second, in rearing and killing animals for food, nonsense to say that a rock has an interest in not we are sacrificing their most significant interests being kicked down the street. Rocks lack interests (i.e., their interests in avoiding pain, in moving because they cannot suffer or experience pleasure. about freely, in living lives appropriate to their However, a cat does have an interest in not being kind, etc.) in order to satisfy trivial interests of our kicked down the street, because she would suffer if own (i.e., our for particular taste sensa- kicked down the street. Since any sentient being tions), and the principle of equality requires that has an interest in avoiding suffering, sentience is we give significant interests greater weight than sufficient for possessing interests. Consequently, trivial ones. Third, were we to grant, for the sake the principle of equality must be understood as of argument, that the gustatory pleasure people applying to all sentient beings: we must give get from eating meat does outweigh the pain, equal weight to the like interests of all sentient suffering, and misery farmed animals endure in beings when carrying out our utilitarian calcula- becoming that meat, it still wouldn’t follow on tions. Giving animals equal consideration does not utilitarian grounds that eating meat is permissible; imply that we must treat all animals alike, but it for utilitarianism requires us to consider all avail- does require that we give their and able actions, and one action available to us at equal weight with human pleasures and pains when mealtimes is to eat a cruelty-free meatless carrying out our utilitarian calculations. Failure to that we enjoy just as much. Since eating delicious deliberate in this way is , a baseless form plant-based foods can satisfy our interest in of discrimination akin to racism and sexism. “tasty” nutritious without requiring farmed Since the principle of equality requires us to animals to suffer, utilitarianism entails that vege- factor animals’ interests into our utilitarian calcu- tarianism is morally required. lations in an impartial way, a compelling utilitar- ian case can be made for ethical vegetarianism. The Rights-Based Argument for Ethical According to preference utilitarianism, an action Vegetarianism is right for a person just in case, out of all the (1983) argues that animals have actions available to that person, that action max- moral rights and that raising and killing them imizes the satisfaction of interests of all those for food violates their rights. He begins his affected by the action (i.e., just in case no other defense of by arguing that the rights action produces more net interest satisfaction). view provides a better account of our moral duties We know that meat production, by its very nature, to our fellow humans than other prominent involves harming animals, causing them to suffer, approaches to ethics. Regan rejects utilitarianism and killing them prematurely. Since animals’ on the grounds that it sanctions sacrificing indi- interests are affected by our dietary choices, we viduals for trivial gains in utility. He rejects 6 Vegetarianism contractarianism since it entails that we have no to be killed for food and profit, the meat industry direct duties to those cognitively impaired is an inherently unjust institution. Since it is cat- humans who are incapable of understanding the egorically wrong to purchase the products of an social contract. Unlike these other views, the unjust industry, it is categorically wrong to pur- rights view maintains that all human beings are chase and consume meat. Consequently, vegetar- equally valuable in and of themselves. Because ianism is morally required. all humans are equally inherently valuable, Regan argues, they have an equal moral right to be treated in ways that respect their value. Objections to Singer’s and Regan’s Defenses Why are all humans equally inherently valu- of Vegetarianism able? Regan’s answer is that they are all Both Singer and Regan predicate their arguments experiencing subjects of a life – i.e., conscious for ethical vegetarianism on the equal beings with experiential welfares that matter to considerability premise: them. Since human infants, senile humans, and mentally deficient humans are equally experienc- (EC) Animals deserve exactly the same degree of ing subjects of a life, they have equal inherent moral consideration as that owed humans value and the same right to respectful treatment and/or have rights equal in strength to the as all other human beings. rights of humans. Regan next observes that humans aren’t the only animals who are subjects of a life. Since Critics typically respond to Singer’s and many nonhuman animals are also subjects of a Regan’s arguments by dismissing the underlying life, Regan concludes that they too have equal normative theories (i.e., utilitarianism and the inherent value and the same right to respectful rights view, respectively) on which their argu- treatment as humans – they cannot be used as a ments are based and by rejecting the equal mere means to our ends. When we raise and kill considerability premise. For example, Carl animals for food, we treat inherently valuable Cohen (2001) rejects Regan’s rights view and, beings in ways that reduce them to the status of by implication, (EC). Cohen insists that all and “things.” In doing so, we fail to respect their only those beings with the capacity for moral inherent value, we violate their rights, and we autonomy have rights (2001, p. 36). Because act immorally, as a result. Because animal agri- humans have this capacity, they have rights. culture systematically violates the rights of ani- Because animals lack the capacity for moral mals, the rights view calls for the total dissolution autonomy, they lack rights, and if they lack rights, of animal agriculture. they ipso facto lack rights equal in strength to the Regan argues that vegetarianism is morally rights of humans. If animals lack rights, as Cohen obligatory. But how, exactly, does one move insists, then killing them for food obviously does from the wrongness of animal agriculture to the not violate their rights. Regan and others have wrongness of eating meat? After all, a dead piece responded to Cohen’s criticism by noting that of meat in the grocery store is not a subject of a many humans lack the capacity for free moral life and thus does not have rights. So, why is judgment, and yet, we still think these humans purchasing and eating that meat wrong on the have moral rights equal in strength to the rights rights view? According to the rights view, it is of autonomous humans. If our pre-theoretical categorically wrong to purchase the products of intuition that nonautonomous humans have an unjust industry. Any practice or institution that moral rights is correct, then contra Cohen, the systematically violates rights by treating inher- capacity for moral autonomy is not a necessary ently valuable beings as mere things to be con- condition for possessing moral rights. sumed is inherently unjust. Because the meat Peter Carruthers takes a similar tack when industry systematically violates the rights of criticizing Singer’s utilitarian argument for veg- farmed animals by treating them as mere things etarianism. He finds both utilitarianism and the Vegetarianism 7 equal considerability premise underlying it to be amount of suffering in the world (because of the unacceptable. As for utilitarianism, he asks us to additional human suffering it produced), which is imagine stumbling upon a burning building antithetical to utilitarianism. containing 100 healthy dogs in cages and 1 old There are, then, compelling reasons to think friendless man. We only have time either to flip that both Cohen’s and Carruthers’s criticisms the electronic switch that frees all the dogs from miss their marks. Even so, many people intui- their cages simultaneously or to pull out the old tively side with Cohen and Carruthers in their man, but not both. Suppose, moreover, we know rejection of (EC). For present purposes, we can saving the dogs would maximize interest satis- sidestep the question of whether or not (EC) is faction. In such a situation, utilitarianism requires true, because many arguments for ethical vege- us to save the dogs rather than the old man. tarianism do not presuppose (EC). The next sec- Carruthers finds this result “morally outrageous” tion will explore such an argument. (1992, pp. 95–96). Carruthers finds (EC) equally unacceptable. He takes (EC) to imply that killing an animal is Ethical Vegetarianism and Moral Consistency just as morally serious as killing a human. A number of philosophers (Curnutt 1997; Engel Accepting that implication would force us to 2000, 2001; DeGrazia 2009) have sought to regard practices, like animal agriculture, which reduce the argument for ethical vegetarianism to involve the regular slaughter of animals, as being its simplest form. Starting with three common- as moral reprehensible as the Nazi holocaust, in moral that we all accept, these which case any form of opposition, no matter philosophers force us to examine the logical and how violent, e.g., bombing farmers’ homes, practical implications of our own beliefs. The would be fully justified (Carruthers 1992, p. 96). principles are: Carruthers finds these implications “morally abhorrent” (1992, p. 96). (P1) It is wrong to harm, or support practices that It is not clear how effective or how fair harm, sentient animals unnecessarily. Carruthers’s criticisms are. First, Singer denies (P2) It is wrong to cause, or support practices that that the equal considerability premise entails that cause, sentient animals to suffer all lives are equally valuable. He argues at length unnecessarily. that the killing of a person (i.e., a self-aware, (P3) It is wrong to kill, or support practices that autonomous individual with a sense of the future) kill, sentient animals unnecessarily. is more seriously wrong than the killing of a merely sentient animal. Singer is not endorsing a These principles are not in dispute. Even the form of speciesism here, for not all humans are staunchest defenders of animal use embrace these persons and some nonhumans (e.g., chimpanzees, commonsense principles. For example, Cohen bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans) are persons, on explicitly endorses (P2) and (P3): “we, as moral his view. So, Singer’s view does not imply that agents, have a general obligation to avoid impos- factory farming is the moral equivalent of the Nazi ing needless pain or death” (2001, p. 226). holocaust, though other authors, quite indepen- Carruthers also endorses (P2): “Most people dent of Singer, have made such comparisons. hold that it is wrong to cause animals unnecessary Regarding Carruthers’s charge that utilitarian- suffering.... all will agree that gratuitous ism’s commitment to (EC) justifies using vio- suffering – suffering caused for no good lence to bring an end to animal exploitation, it is reason – is wrong” (1992, p. 8). Principles highly unlikely that perpetrating violence on (P1)–(P3) are so central to our conception of farmers would be an effective means of reducing that any moral theory that conflicted farmed animal suffering, and if, as is likely, it with them would be rejected as unsatisfactory failed to reduce animal suffering, then such vio- on reflective equilibrium grounds. Since any ade- lence would only serve to increase the total quate moral view must cohere with these 8 Vegetarianism principles, we can appeal to these principles vegetarianism by demonstrating the nutritional directly when defending ethical vegetarianism. adequacy of vegetarian diets and by highlighting In the section “Ethical Vegetarianism: both the negative impact meat production has on A Historical Overview,” we observed three the environment and the role animal agriculture things: plays in global food scarcity. Lappé’s reasons for vegetarianism remain as salient today as they (I) Mammals, birds, and fish are sentient were in 1971. The present section explores three beings that can experience morally interrelated reasons for thinking that vegetarian- significant pain. ism is morally required: (i) environmental sus- (II) There is no way to raise animals for food tainability, (ii) concern over global food scarcity without harming and killing those animals. and the just distribution of resources, and (iii) Meat production inherently involves concern for future generations. harming animals, causing them to suffer, and killing them. Animal Agriculture and the Environment (III) There is no nutritional need to eat meat. Animal agriculture is an extremely resource- intensive, environmentally degrading, highly Given III, all of the harm, suffering, and pre- inefficient means of food production. This sub- mature death inflicted on farmed animals is section will focus on animal agriculture’s contri- unnecessary. It serves no vital human need. bution to water shortage, water pollution, Given I, II, and III, it follows that when one deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and soil ero- purchases meat, one is supporting a practice sion. Subsequent subsections will focus on ani- (viz., animal agriculture) that harms sentient ani- mal agriculture’s waste of nutrients, its impact on mals, causes them to suffer, and kills them unnec- climate change, and its impact on humans. essarily. Since it is wrong to cause, or support practices that cause, sentient animals unneces- Water Usage sary harm, unnecessary suffering, and/or unnec- Meat production consumes vastly more water essary premature death, (P1)–(P3) entail that it is (per kg and per kcal) than and root vegeta- wrong to purchase and consume meat (whenever ble production. When measured by weight, meat plant-based food is available, which in modern production requires 100–200 times more water societies is almost always). Consequently, those per kg produced than grain and produc- of us who accept (P1)–(P3) are rationally com- tion. For example, it takes 500 liters of water to mitted to the of eating meat, on pain grow 1 kg of potatoes and 900 liters of water to of inconsistency. Thus, our very own beliefs grow 1 kg of wheat, but it requires 100,000 liters entail that vegetarianism is morally required of water to produce 1 kg of beef (Engel 2000, (Engel 2000, 2001). p. 871). Even when measured by calorie, beef Non-anthropocentric concern for animals isn’t production requires 20 times more water per the only reason for thinking that vegetarianism is kcal produced than grain and root vegetable pro- morally required. There are also compelling duction. Either way you measure it, animal agri- anthropocentric reasons for thinking vegetarian- culture is extremely inefficient in its water usage, ism obligatory. The next section examines three compared to grain and vegetable production. If such reasons. there were unlimited supplies of fresh water, such water inefficiency might not be a problem, but supplies of fresh water are, indeed, limited. Ethical Vegetarianism, Environmental According to the UN, water scarcity already Sustainability, and Global Justice affects every continent on the planet, with 1.2 billion people currently living in areas of physical In her groundbreaking book Diet for a Small scarcity. Against this backdrop, it is imperative Planet (1971), Francis Moore Lappé defended that humans take effective steps to reduce their Vegetarianism 9 water footprint. In light of animal agriculture’s indigenous animals and plants that depend on water inefficiency, switching from a meat-based that rainforest ecosystem for nutrients and shelter diet to a vegetarian diet is one of the most signif- are driven to extinction through loss of habitat. icant steps one can take to reduce one’s water We are now losing an estimated 50,000 species footprint. Skipping one shower a week reduces each year, due to habitat loss and degradation, a one’s water footprint by 60 gal per week. Skip- rate of extinction 50–500 times greater than the ping one quarter-pound hamburger reduces one’s background rate reflected in the fossil record. water footprint by 6,000 gal. For someone Ever increasing meat production is the driving currently eating a quarter pound of beef per day, force behind this loss of biodiversity. switching to a vegetarian diet would We are also losing topsoil at an alarming reduce his/her water footprint by 42,000 gal rate – another negative by-product of the live- (i.e., 175,000 liters) per week. stock industry. Much of arable land around the world is devoted to feed crop production. In the Water Pollution USA, for example, 80 % of the corn and 95 % of Animal agriculture is one of the leading causes of the oats grown are fed to . The excessive surface-water and groundwater pollution. Rais- cultivation needed to produce these crops is ing animals for food generates an enormous responsible for the loss of seven billion tons of amount of hazardous waste in the form of excre- topsoil in the USA each year. Nearly one third of ment. In the USA, for example, livestock produce the world’s arable land has been lost as a result of 250,000 lb of excrement per second, resulting in soil erosion. Currently, the USA is losing topsoil one billion tons of unrecycled waste per year at a rate 13 times faster than the rate of soil (Engel 2000, p. 872). This waste contains patho- formation (Engel 2000, pp. 871–872). Since top- gens (including viruses and antibiotic-resistant soil is necessary for growing crops for direct bacteria), heavy metals, , antibiotics, human consumption, continued loss of topsoil ammonia, and high levels of nitrogen and phos- threatens the survival of our species. phorous, which make their way into rivers, lakes, coastal waters, and groundwater as a result of Nutrient Inefficiency, Global Hunger, rainfall and irrigation runoff. The excess nitrogen and the Just Distribution of Resources and phosphorous cause river eutrophication (i.e., Each year farmers grow more than enough grain excess plant growth that causes fish to die from and beans to adequately nourish every human lack of oxygen) and coastal “dead zones.” The being on the planet, and yet, currently, one out other pollutants can contaminate drinking water of every nine humans on the planet is suffering supplies, rendering them unfit for human con- from undernutrition, a form of sumption. A 1995 General Accounting Office resulting from insufficient calories and/or lack Report to the US Senate Committee on Agricul- of essential nutrients. Building on Lappé’s ture, , and Forestry found that animal insights, the present section explains the role waste runoff was responsible for impairing animal agriculture plays in generating global 72 % of rivers and streams, 56 % of lake acres, food scarcity. and 43 % of estuary miles (Engel 2000, p. 872). Global Hunger and Deforestation, Loss of Biodiversity, and Soil Undernutrition due to lack of sufficient nutrients Erosion and calories causes stunting of growth and Animal agriculture is also the primary driver of wasting of bodily tissues and sometimes causes deforestation in South America, as rainforests are premature death. Worldwide, 795 million people being clear-cut at a rate of 80,000 acres per day to are currently undernourished. In 2011, 165 million make room for new pastureland and/or for new children globally experienced stunting and 52 mil- fields in which to plant feed crops. When children experienced wasting as a result of rainforests are replaced by monocultures, the undernutrition. That same year, 3.1 million 10 Vegetarianism children under the age of five died due to under- consumed by livestock does not get transferred to nutrition. While hundreds of millions of humans the humans who consume those animals. Were around the world are suffering from undernutri- humans simply to consume plants directly, there tion and its attendant diseases, no cows on feedlots would be 90 % more food energy available for are undernourished. Instead, they are being fat- assimilation by humans – more than enough to tened on nutrient-rich grains and legumes (viz., completely nourish every human on the planet. corn and ). Those same grains and legumes could be used to adequately nourish all Just Distribution of Resources of the nearly 800 million humans suffering from If we were living in a world where every human undernutrition, but instead they are fed to cows enjoyed an overabundance of food and where all and steers so that people in affluent nations can eat humans for the foreseeable future would also beef. Since it takes 13 lb of grain to produce one enjoy an overabundance of food, then employing pound of beef, the process of raising grain-fed highly inefficient systems of food production cattle for food results in a significant net loss of would not be unjust (at least where humans are food, calories, and macronutrients. concerned). But we don’t live in such a world. We live in a world with significant global food scar- Nutrient Inefficiency city, where that very scarcity is the result of the By cycling grain through livestock to produce inefficiencies inherent in meat production. When animal protein, we lose 90 % of that grain’s we cycle grains and legumes through livestock to protein, 100 % of its carbohydrates, and 100 % produce animal protein, we are, in effect, squan- of its fiber. We also lose 90 % of its caloric dering food that could adequately nourish all of energy. A brief examination of the trophic pyra- the world’s undernourished people. Squandering mid explains why so much energy is lost by food in a time of food scarcity strikes many as cycling grain through livestock. Green plants unjust, especially when one considers why so are autotrophs (literally, “self-nourishers”), much food is squandered. We squander food to because they convert solar energy and inorganic meet the taste preferences of affluent people. matter into energy-rich organic molecules via Affluent people don’t need meat to survive or photosynthesis. In contrast, animals are hetero- flourish; they just desire meat for its flavor. The trophs (literally, “nourished from others”), hundreds of millions of undernourished humans, because they must obtain their energy and most however, do need adequate amounts of beans and of their nutrients by eating other organisms. grains just to survive. Utilitarian, Kantian, and Autotrophs are the primary producers of food Rawlsian theories of justice all agree that survival energy and comprise the first trophic level of needs trump trivial . It is simply unjust to every food chain. As autotrophs are consumed, let people starve to death so that affluent people their energy is transferred to heterotrophic con- can experience trivial and fleeting taste sensations. sumers up the food chain. At the second trophic level are primary consumers – herbivores that Climate Change and Future Human consume plants directly. The third trophic level Generations consists of secondary consumers – carnivores There is scientific consensus that the world is that eat herbivores. Because herbivores and car- warming. The past three decades have been the nivores are more active than plants, they expend a warmest on record going back to 1850, and each significant amount of their assimilated energy on of the last three decades has been warmer than the bodily maintenance, making that energy preceding decade. Based on observed increases unavailable to the next trophic level. “Trophic in global average air and ocean temperatures, efficiency” refers to the percentage of energy widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising that is transferred from one trophic level to the global average sea level, the Intergovernmental next. Since terrestrial habitats have a mean tro- Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] has concluded phic efficiency of 10 %, 90 % of the plant energy that the warming of the climate system is Vegetarianism 11 unequivocal. The FAO judges it to be firmly 2006, p. xxi). Livestock production accounts for established that anthropogenic (human- 9 % of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, 37 % of generated) climate change is occurring, and the anthropogenic methane emissions, 65 % of IPCC has very high confidence that human anthropogenic nitrous oxide emissions, and 64 % activities – in particular, those activities resulting of anthropogenic ammonia emissions (FAO 2006, in greenhouse gas emissions – are the dominant p. xxi). By switching to a vegetarian diet, one cause of warming since 1950. reduces one’s carbon footprint by 1.5 tons of The principal anthropogenic greenhouse gas- CO2 per year, a greater reduction in CO2 emis- ses are carbon dioxide [CO2], nitrous oxide sions than trading in one’s SUV for a hybrid [N2O], and methane [CH4]. According to the vehicle. Given animal agriculture’s sizeable con- IPCC, global atmospheric CO2 concentrations tribution to global warming, our duty to leave have increased from a preindustrial value of future human generations with a habitable planet 280 ppm to a value of 391 ppm in 2011 – an as good as our own provides yet another sound increase of 40 %. Atmospheric concentrations moral reason to adopt a vegetarian diet. of nitrous oxide (which has a global warming potential 296 times greater than CO2) are 20 % up from 270 ppb to 342 ppb. And atmospheric Conclusion concentrations of methane have increased 150 % from preindustrial concentrations of 722 ppb to The case for ethical vegetarianism is overdeter- 1803 ppb in 2011. As these gasses concentrate in mined. When one eats meat, one not only sup- the atmosphere, they prevent infrared radiation ports the unnecessary harming, exploiting, and being emitted from the Earth’s surface from killing of farmed animals, one also supports an escaping into space. By trapping the heat that environmentally destructive and unsustainable would have otherwise escaped into space, these system of agriculture that wastes and/or destroys greenhouse gasses result in positive radiative vital resources (i.e., water, topsoil, rainforests, forcing, the net effect of which is an increase in and nutrients), exacerbates global hunger and global mean air temperature at the Earth’s sur- the unjust distribution of resources, and contrib- face. A rise in temperature of 3.3 C by 2080 utes to climate change on a massive scale. Any would put stress on the water resources of one of these reasons – the animal exploitation and 2.5–3.2 billion people and would expose 29 mil- abuse inherent in meat production, meat produc- lion people to coastal flooding (Singer 2011, tion’s environmental destructiveness and p. 217). The only way to slow the rate of warming unsustainability, animal agriculture’s inefficient and thereby reduce the harm future humans will use of vital resources, the meat industry’s role in experience from such warming is for humans promoting global food scarcity and worsening an collectively to significantly reduce their contri- already unjust distribution of resources, and the butions to greenhouse gas emissions. meat industry’s contribution to climate The amount of greenhouses gasses an individ- change – would constitute a good reason for ual is personally responsible for contributing to ethical vegetarianism. Taken collectively, these the atmosphere is popularly referred to as that reasons provide an overwhelming case for the individual’s “carbon footprint.” We owe it to moral obligatoriness of vegetarianism. future humans to take effective steps to reduce our carbon footprints. One of the most significant factors affecting our carbon footprint is what we Cross-References eat. In fact, what we eat has a bigger impact on our carbon footprint than what we drive. The livestock ▶ Agricultural Ethics sector is responsible for 18 % of greenhouse gas ▶ emissions measured in CO2 equivalents [that’s ▶ Animal Rights more than all transportation combined] (FAO ▶ 12 Vegetarianism

▶ Lappé, F. M. (1971). . New York: ▶ Biodiversity Ballantine Books. Mangels, A. R., Messina, V., & Melina, V. (2003). Posi- ▶ Climate Change and Health tion of the American dietetic association and dietitians ▶ Food Security of Canada: Vegetarian diets. Journal of the American ▶ Future Generations Dietetic Association, 103(6), 748–765. ▶ Justice, Global Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press. ▶ Moral Status Regan, T., & Singer, P. (Eds.). (1989). Animal rights and ▶ Zoocentrism human obligations (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Salt, H. S. (1886). A plea for vegetarianism, and other essays. Manchester: The . References Singer, P. (1975). . New York: Avon Books. Carruthers, P. (1992). The animals issue. Cambridge: Singer, P. (2011). (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University Press. Cohen, C. (2001). The animal rights debate (with Walters, K. S., & Portmess, L. (Eds.). (1999). Ethical T. Regan). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. vegetarianism from Pythagoras to Peter Singer. Curnutt, J. (1997). A new argument for vegetarianism. Albany: State University of New York Press. Journal of , 28, 153–172. DeGrazia, D. (2009). Moral vegetarianism from a very broad basis. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 6(2), Further Readings 143–165. Adams, C. J. (1990). The sexual politics of meat: A Engel, M., Jr. (2000). The immorality of eating meat. In feminist-vegetarian critical theory. New York: L. Pojman (Ed.), The moral life (pp. 856–889). Oxford: Continuum. Oxford University Press. http://www.niu.edu/engel/_ Regan, T. (2004). Empty cages. Lanham: Rowman and pdf/NoMeat.pdf. Accessed 26 Sept 2015. Littlefield. Engel, M., Jr. (2001). The mere considerability of animals. Robbins, J. (2012). (2nd ed.). Acta Analytica, 16(27), 89–107. Novato: New World Library. FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). (2006). Live- Singer, P. (2009). Animal liberation. Updated Edition. stock’s long shadow. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/ New York: HarperCollins. a0701e/a0701e.pdf. Accessed 26 Sept 2015.