The ethical methodologies of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are typically perceived as in utter opposition to one another, on account of how they evaluate consequences. Kant’s ethics are rooted in a hypothetical consideration of an action’s successful universal applicability, without any situational considerations. In contrast, Mill’s moral judgment is based in a cost-benefit analysis of the potential situational consequences that may arise from a particular action. While this difference may often promote unique moral evaluations, their ethical methodologies likely lead to a similar conclusion about the ethical response to animal agriculture. I contend that, while Kant and Mill would evaluate animal agriculture with different considerations and calculations, they would both argue that consuming flesh is wholly unethical, given the modern empirical research about its unavoidable, disastrous consequences. In this paper, I will explain each philosopher’s ethical framework. I will then enumerate some of the direct and inevitable consequences of animal husbandry and justify their consideration in each moral system. Finally, I will conclude by arguing that sustainable eating must preclude animal consumption.
Kant’s ethics are a deontological form of moral analysis, based in the categorical imperative. He demands that people only pursue actions that they could imagine successfully adopted as a “universal law of nature” (Kant 1785). This value is one of hypothetical universal applicability, such that actors must evaluate whether humanity would prosper if everyone were to make the same choice (Kant 1785). Kant values ethics as an obligation, so it applies to all rational beings by “absolute necessity,” with no circumstantial exceptions (Kant 1785). And yet, while Kant certainly avoids situational circumstances when considering the moral worth of any given action, he very critically considers the intuitive, definitional circumstances of an action (Kant 1785). He considers suicide unethical, for example, because if everyone were to commit suicide, then humanity would cease to exist (Kant 1785). Therefore, Kant must understand, through anthropology, the definitional and universally unavoidable ramifications of suicide—that the action will cause the death of the actor (Kant 1785). Regardless, to Kant, a behavior is either always ethical or unethical, and the situation in which it arises is wholly irrelevant to its moral standing (Kant 1785). Overall, Kant’s ethics are strict, universal, and without much variance.
On the other hand, Mill promotes situationally based cost-benefit analyses of an action to determine its moral worth. Because Mill labels happiness as “the root of all morality” and “the object of all virtue,” one should pursue only that which brings about the most happiness and prevents the most pain (Mill 1863). Mill’s ethics also function on a larger scale: The general happiness of everyone has greater utility than the happiness of any single person (Mill 1863). Millian utilitarianism’s inevitable disadvantage is that, as Kant clarifies, happiness is “indeterminate,” so no one can fully know its causes (Mill 1863). Mill ultimately addresses this both by valuing mental pleasures over physical ones, and by declaring that justice is of greatest Utility (Mill 1863). As follows, when analysing large-scale meat consumption from a Millian perspective, I will maintain justice to be the most desirable outcome for all of humanity.
To evaluate the morality of meat consumption, Kant and Mill would both consider the unavoidable, direct consequences of omnivorism: dramatically higher greenhouse gas emissions, unsustainable land and resource use across the world, and a disproportionate array of consequences toward certain sectors of the global populace.
Animal husbandry emits the lion’s share of agriculturally related greenhouse gases. Whereas 16-29 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions are from agriculture, 80 percent of that stems from animal husbandry, particularly from ruminants (Haines, et al. 2015). These animals emit “65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide” (Knight and Tutu 2013). As follows, one kilogram of beef is responsible for 36.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents, with significant pollution from “the production and transport of feed” (Koneswaran and Nierenberg 2008). Inefficiency is the inherent problem with animal husbandry, because it requires all of the resources of non-animal agriculture, as well as those associated with caring for livestock. To produce feed, farmers typically layer their crops with copious amounts of manure and nitrogen fertilizer, bringing forth 35 percent of nitrous oxide emissions in agriculture (Clutterbuck 2017; Koneswaran and Nierenberg 2008; Robertson, et al. 2013). And yet, despite the significant level of emissions stemming from feed, sustainable vegetarian diets typically reduce associated water use and greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 50 and 80 percent, respectively (Clutterbuck 2017; Haines, et al. 2015; Havlik, et al. 2014). The USDA has confirmed that greenhouse gas emissions are directly related to “livestock population sizes,” so any reduction in meat consumption greatly benefits the environment (qtd. in Koneswaran and Nierenberg 2008). In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, the results are unambiguous: Animal consumption is undoubtedly a tremendous source of greenhouse gas emissions. This is not situational, but universal and unavoidable. Such consequences merit consideration in both Kant and Mill’s ethical methodologies, because they demonstrate that animal husbandry is universally unsustainable, with horrible consequences for the world at large.
Animal agriculture also poses dangerous consequences for land use and resource inefficiency. Livestock now graze on 30 percent of all land surface, and with feed included, over two-thirds of all fertile land (Havlik, et al. 2014; Knight and Tutu 2013; Koneswaran and Nierenberg 2008). This is because feeding livestock requires 80 percent and more than 50 percent of all global soy and corn, respectively (Koneswaran and Nierenberg 2008). With such high resource costs, the typical Western omnivore diet consumes up to 1,800 gallons of water each day (Clutterbuck 2017). Grazing also typically degrades fertile land, speeding processes of desertification, which forces farms to occupy even more land (Koneswaran and Nierenberg 2008). Great Britain alone loses two million tons of soil each year because of agriculture-related desertification (Clutterbuck 2017). The continued demand for more grazing land has led to great deforestation, particularly in the tropics, where 83 percent of new farmland is available on account of deforestation (Havlik, et al. 2014; Knight and Tutu 2013). This instigates a vicious cycle: Forests capture carbon emissions, so eliminating them for grazing only leads to further uncaptured emissions (Clutterbuck 2017). Global warming, as a result, negatively impacts both plant-based and animal agriculture: Crops require exact temperatures and environmental stability for continued growth (Robertson, et al. 2013), while heat stress for animals leads to “increased water intake… reduced production, reduced reproduction, and increased mortality” (Robertson, et al. 2013). This leads to more grazing land, more deforestation, and more uncaptured carbon emissions, as the cycle continues. Such consequences are not situational factors that could potentially stem from meat consumption. They are legitimate and unavoidable consequences, clearly demanding ethical consideration, as they clearly demonstrate that meat consumption is universally unsustainable and disastrous for the environment.
Furthermore, agriculturally related greenhouse gas emissions and irresponsible resource use often disproportionately harm specific groups of stakeholders. This is agriculturally fueled injustice (Chambwera, et al. 2011). Here are a few ways that anthropogenic climate change, fueled by animal husbandry, can disproportionately impact certain communities: Firstly, global warming is uneven, with the potential to adjust global patterns of thermohaline circulation and dramatically alter certain climates (Moellendorf 71). This may shift the North Atlantic Drift, forever altering the climate of southern Europe and potentially dismantling the centuries-old agricultural and gastronomic traditions that have emerged there (Moellendorf 71). Such dramatic and uneven heating will likely alter rainfall patterns, rendering certain communities vulnerable to extreme drought (Chambwera, et al. 2011). Furthermore, global warming will likely lead to the melting of the ice sheets in both Greenland and West Antarctica, which could raise sea levels by a range of 6-20 feet (Knight and Tutu 2013; Moellendorf 71). Such a phenomenon would wipe out most of the Asian rice market, rendering the millions of people who rely rice, an already thinly traded product, dangerously food insecure (Knight and Tutu 2013). These devastating events are likely to occur more frequently in the future, and continue to raise “global food prices, hunger, and malnutrition” (Knight and Tutu 2013). This impacts impoverished and developing countries most severely (Clutterbuck 2017; Garnett 2012).
The consequences of meat consumption that I have enumerated are nearly certain. There is already enough data about animal husbandry, so the above consequences are clear, despite the uniqueness of anthropogenic climate change (Moellendorf 64). And yet, animal husbandry is still surrounded by “epistemic uncertainty,” because our empirical knowledge fails to illuminate all of its consequences (Moellendorf 65). For example, there may be certain unknown greenhouse gas feedback mechanisms that may render our gastronomic decisions all the more dangerous (Moellendorf 68). Therefore, a cost-benefit analysis of meat consumption—either as a utilitarian analysis of worldwide meat consumption or as a Kantian analysis of hypothetical universal omnivorism—cannot be performed to its fullest extent. We simply cannot know all of the consequences of meat consumption until they have already occurred. However, the consequences that are clear about animal husbandry are already quite damning, and most epistemic uncertainty is about whether the consequences of animal husbandry are even worse than contemporary estimates (Moellendorf 80-1). Thus, it is reasonable to suggest pursuing a more sustainable agricultural system, to mitigate any potential consequences (Moellendorf 89).
Sustainability can denote a number of unique agricultural measures to increase resource efficiency in farming, and it would likely lead to a more just global food system. Contemporary agriculture’s business-as-usual consumption scenario is already unjust: Whereas industrialized countries consume 550 and 78 kilograms of cereal and meat, respectively, per capita each year, these numbers drop to 260 and 50 kilograms for developing countries (Pretty 2008). Not to mention, there are 800 million food insecure people across the world (Pretty 2008). In contrast, sustainable agriculture promotes a healthier, livable future for more people, through increased biodiversity and minimized non-renewable inputs in food production (Pretty 2008). Disbanding concentrated animal feeding operations and more efficient “grassland management” would also reduce associated nitrogen dioxide emissions and resource use (Havlik, et al. 2014; Koneswaran and Nierenberg 2008). Kant also particularly values moderation when considering ethical decision-making, which would certainly imply more ecologically efficient agricultural techniques (Koneswaran and Nierenberg 2008). However, rendering the modern agricultural system more sustainable would likely only reduce associated greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent (Smith, et al. 2008). For more significant reductions, people must stop consuming meat.
Halting meat consumption would greatly impact the world’s carrying capacity, the number of people who can healthfully live on earth at any one time (Clutterbuck 2017). Carrying capacity typically has an inverse relationship with meat consumption, since the latter is so resource-inefficient (Clutterbuck 2017). Lacto-vegetarianism engenders the greatest possible carrying capacity (Clutterbuck 2017). Given that 800 million people across the world are already food insecure, there is little reason to believe that more prevalent meat consumption would allow for a global carrying capacity greater than or equal to the world population (Pretty 2008).
To Kant, this would demonstrate that meat consumption fails the categorical imperative: Animal husbandry is too unsustainable and resource-intensive to be effectively universalized. Its associated greenhouse gas emissions endanger the health and safety of the entire global community for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, its extremely inefficient resource usage renders our modern world incapable of providing proper nutrition to all of its residents. Therefore, Kant would rule meat consumption wholly unethical, without exception.
The tremendous costs of more prevalent meat consumption would also consistently outweigh any of its benefits, when considering a Millian approach. Such a large-scale gastronomic choice would lead to great injustice across the world, as it would disproportionately impact impoverished and developing nations in the years to come. These nations would be much more vulnerable to its disadvantages, including widespread food insecurity and malnutrition. Therefore, more prevalent meat consumption would lead to such an irresponsible injustice that it would be too intolerably painful for Mill to ever label it as ethical. Furthermore, universal vegetarianism would be ethically advantageous for both thinkers, because an ecologically stable planet would ensure the health and safety of future generations, as well.
In evaluating animal husbandry, both Kant and Mill must consider heightened greenhouse gas emissions and resource-intensive land use, as well as their disproportionate impacts on underprivileged communities, because these are inevitable consequences of global meat consumption. And yet, any global cost-benefit analysis of the subject is incomplete, because no one is wholly certain about all of the consequences of meat consumption. Nevertheless, while more sustainable and resource-efficient animal husbandry methods are possible, I still contend that meat consumption is unethical, given its grave, inevitable consequences. More prevalent meat consumption would very likely yield a global carrying capacity smaller than the contemporary human population. Any lower carrying capacity would be unethical to both Kant and Mill, since it would demonstrate that omnivorism is unsustainable, universally non-applicable, and unjust in its disproportionate consequences for specific communities of under-privileged stakeholders. Certainly, more research should compare the merits of various vegetarian diets. However, there is enough clear evidence about the unavoidable consequences of meat consumption to confirm that both Kant and Mill—for different reasons but each unequivocally—would deem it unethical.
Works Cited
Chambwera, M., et al. Costing agriculture’s adaptation to climate change. International Institute for Environment and Development, 2011.
Clutterbuck, C. Sustainability. 2017. Bittersweet Brexit: The future of food, farming, land and labour. London, UK: Pluto Press.
Garnett, T. Climate change and agriculture: Can market governance mechanisms reduce emissions from the food system fairly and effectively? International Institute for Environment and Development, 2012.
Haines, A., et al. 2015. Health of People, Places and Planet: Reflections Based on Tony McMichael’s Four Decades of Contribution to Epidemiological Understanding, edited by C. D. Butler et al. Canberra, AU: ANU Press.
Havlik, P., et al. 2014. Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(10) 2014: 3709–3714.
Kalen, S. 2011. Agriculture, food, and environmental policy. Natural Resources & Environment 26(1): 3–7.
Kant, I. 1785. Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. Translated by A. W. Wood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Knight, A., and D. Tutu. 2013. The Global Guide to Animal Protection, edited by A. Linzey, Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Koneswaran, G., and D. Nierenberg. 2008. Global farm animal production and global warming: Impacting and mitigating climate change. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(5): 578–582.
Mill, J. S.. 1863. Utilitarianism. Kitchener, Ont: Batoche Books.
Pretty, J. 2008. Agricultural Sustainability: Concepts, Principles and Evidence. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 363(1491): 447–465.
Robertson, G. P., et al. 2013. Nitrogen–climate interactions in US agriculture. Biogeochemistry, 114: 41–70.
Smith, P., et al. 2008. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in Agriculture. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 363(1492): 789–813.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire