This results in not all vegetarians being utilitarian’s and vice versa, because many vegetarians would be appalled that a utilitarian could rationalise eating meat in some circumstances simply because the end justifies the means. This means that a utilitarian will judge eating meat bad in some circumstance and good in others, depending on its consequences. The negative utilitarian will regard an action as right if it produces less suffering of all affected by it than any alternative action and wrong if it does not. As a negative utilitarian he follows in the footsteps of Karl Popper and arguably The Buddha who felt that “The Greatest Happiness” was achieved by minimising suffering. Singer’s argument against eating meat is based on the utilitarian principle that ethical actions are those which create the most utility (pleasure, happiness) or to be more precise in the case of Singer (who is working from a negative utilitarian position) those which reduce the total amount of suffering in the world. I will now go onto to answer these questions and also outline the premises underlying Singer’s argument. The word “wrong” alludes to a moral absolutism but is this wrongness on moral, environmental or health grounds?.Does Singer also feel that eating human meat is wrong and are his arguments for this the same as other animals such as pigs or cows? How do you define the word “meat” which has a dictionary definition of “ the flesh of an animal that is considered edible, especially that of a mammal or bird”.Does Singer feel that just eating meat is wrong or does his objection also extend to killing what is to be eaten?.Premise 4: For most of us, the minor ‘suffering’ involved in our becoming vegetarian is outweighed by the suffering of the animals involved.įirstly the question of “Does Peter Singer show that eating meat is wrong” is worded too vaguely to allow us to make a wide ranging and general statement on Singer’s positing. Premise 3: Animal suffering is involved in enabling us to eat meat. Premise 2: We should give equal consideration to the suffering of animals. Premise 1: We should aim to minimise suffering. This is supported by four legs or premises which are: In the next part I consider Singer’s argument much like a kitchen table with the table top being his position of “Most of us should be vegetarian most of the time”. The first part of this essay will look to clarify the question in order that we can subject Singer’s position to greater scrutiny. Academic philosopher Peter Singer is one of the most high profile contributors to the ‘animal liberation’ debate and the question we are initially posed is “Does Peter Singer show that eating meat is wrong”? This essay will give reasons why the answer to this question is “yes, for most people, most of the time”. TV programmes by celebrity chefs such as Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fernley-Whittingstall have introduced a new generation to the concept of animal rights and made the public reflect on eating meat and their relationship to animals in general.
0 kommentar(er)
