Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:32:20.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Valuing humane lives in two-level utilitarianism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2020

Nicolas Delon Open the ORCID record for Nicolas Delon [Opens in a new window]
Nicolas Delon*
Affiliation:
New College of Florida
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I examine the two-level utilitarian case for humane animal agriculture (by R. M. Hare and Gary Varner) and argue that it fails on its own terms. The case states that, at the ‘intuitive level’ of moral thinking, we can justify raising and killing animals for food, regarding them as replaceable, while treating them with respect. I show that two-level utilitarianism supports, instead, alternatives to animal agriculture. First, the case for humane animal agriculture does not follow from a commitment to two-level utilitarianism combined with a commitment to respecting animal lives. Second, the two-level utilitarian case falls prey to a compartmentalization problem and cannot uphold both respect and replaceability. What I call ‘humane lives’ are not appropriately valued by the lights of two-level utilitarianism itself.

Type
Article
Information
Utilitas , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 276 - 293
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amiot, C. E., Lépine, O., and Zaky, J.. 2019. Compartmentalization of animals: toward an understanding of how we create cognitive distinctions between animals and their implications, Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Early View: 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12177.Google Scholar
Ariely, D. 2008. Predictably Irrational (New York: HarperCollins)Google Scholar
Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., and Radke, H. R. M.. 2012. Don't mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2): 247–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bastian, B., and Loughnan, S.. 2017. Resolving the meat-paradox: a motivational account of morally troublesome behavior and its maintenance, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(3): 278–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bentham, J. 1907 [1789]. Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Bicchieri, C. 2017. Norms in the Wild: How to Diagnose, Measure, and Change Social Norms (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilz, K., and Nadler, J.. 2014. Law, moral attitudes, and behavioral change, in The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Economics and the Law, ed. by Zamir, E. and Teichman, D. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 241–67.Google Scholar
Bollard, L. 2019. Why is meat so cheap? The Open Philanthropy Project Farm Animal Welfare Newsletter. October 4, 2019. https://mailchi.mp/1a041ae10c0d/why-is-meat-so-cheap?e=af5349800b. Accessed November 7, 2019.Google Scholar
Bratanova, B., Loughnan, S., and Bastian, B.. 2011. The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals, Appetite, 57: 193–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callenbach, E. 1996. Bring Back the Buffalo! A Sustainable Future for America's Great Plains (Berkeley: University of California Press).Google Scholar
Delon, N. 2016. The replaceability argument in the ethics of animal husbandry, in Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics (2nd edn), ed. by Thompson, P. B. and Kaplan, D. M. (Dordrecht: Springer). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6167-4.Google Scholar
Delon, N. 2018. Social norms and farm animal protection. Palgrave Communications, 4(139). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0194-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, G. 2015. Experimental approaches to moral standing, Philosophy Compass, 10/11: 914–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, H., Gray, K., and Wegner, D. M.. 2007. Dimensions of mind perception, Science, 315: 619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, K., Schein, C., and Ward, A. F.. 2014. The myth of harmless wrongs in moral cognition, The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143: 1600–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, K., Young, L., and Waytz, A.. 2012. Mind perception is the essence of morality, Psychological Inquiry, 23(2): 101–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, J. 2013. Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap between Us and Them (New York: Penguin).Google Scholar
Gruen, L., and Jones, R. C.. 2015. Veganism as an aspiration, in The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat, ed. by Bramble, B. and Fischer, B. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 153–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, R. M. 1981. Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method and Point (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, R. M. 1988. Comments on Williams, in Hare and Critics: Essays on Moral Thinking, ed. by Seanor, D. and Fotion, N. (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Hare, R. M. 1993. Possible People, in Essays on Bioethics (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 67–83.Google Scholar
Hare, R. M. 1999. Why I am only a demi-vegetarian, in Singer and his Critics, ed. by Jamieson, D. (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 233–46.Google Scholar
Jack, A. I., and Robbins, P.. 2012. The phenomenal stance revisited, Review of Philosophy & Psychology, 3(3): 383–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, T. M., and Sebo, J.. Forthcoming. Consequentialism and nonhuman animals, in The Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism, ed. by Portmore, D. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux).Google Scholar
Kasperbauer, T. J. 2017. Mentalizing animals: implications for moral psychology and animal ethics, Philosophical Studies, 174(2): 465–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Lazari-Radek, K., and Singer, P.. 2014. The Point of View of the Universe (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, S. S. 1994. The coherence of two-level utilitarianism: Hare vs. Williams, Utilitas, 6(2): 301–09.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., and Bastian, B.. 2010. The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals, Appetite, 55: 156–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maguire, B., and Brown, B.. 2019. Markets, interpersonal practices, and signal distortion, Philosophers’ Imprint, 19(14): 1–16.Google Scholar
McAdams, R. H. 2015. The Expressive Powers of Law: Theories and Limits (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milburn, J. 2017. The animal lovers’ paradox? On the ethics of “pet food”, in Pets and People: The Ethics of our Relationships with Companion Animals, ed. by Overall, C. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. E. 2014. Reactive attitudes and the Hare–Williams debate: towards a new consequentialist moral psychology, The Philosophical Quarterly, 64(254): 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piazza, J., Ruby, M. B., Loughnan, S., Luong, M., Kulik, J., Watkins, H. M., and Seigerman, M.. 2015. Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns, Appetite, 91: 114–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piazza, J., and Loughnan, S.. 2016. When meat gets personal, animals’ minds matter less: motivated use of intelligence information in judgments of moral standing, Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(8): 867–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Railton, P. 2014. The affective dog and its rational tale: intuition and attunement, Ethics, 124(4): 813–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothgerber, H. 2015. Can you have your meat and eat it too? Conscientious omnivores, vegetarians, and adherence to diet, Appetite, 84: 196–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salt, H. S. 1914. The Logic of the Larder, in The Humanities of Diet (Manchester: The Vegetarian Society).Google Scholar
Sebo, J., and Singer, P.. 2018. Activism, in Critical Terms for Animal Studies, ed. by Gruen, L. (The University of Chicago Press), pp. 33–46.Google Scholar
Schlottmann, C., and Sebo, J.. 2019. Food, Animals, and the Environment: An Ethical Approach (New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
Singer, P. 1999. A response, in Singer and his Critics, ed. by Jamieson, D. (Malden: Blackwell), pp. 269–335.Google Scholar
Singer, P. 2011. Practical Ethics, 3rd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) [First published in 1993.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, P. 2016. Afterword, in The Ethics of Killing Animals, ed. by Višak, T. and Garner, R. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 229–35.Google Scholar
Stephen, L. 1896. Social Rights and Duties, vol. 1 (London: Sonnenschein).Google Scholar
Sytsma, J., and Machery, E.. 2012. The two sources of moral standing, Review of Philosophy & Psychology, 3(3): 303–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tulving, E. 1985. Memory and consciousness, Canadian Psychology, 26: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varner, G. 2002. Pets, companion animals, and domesticated partners, in Ethics for Everyday, ed. by Benatar, D. (New York: McGraw-Hill), pp. 450–75.Google Scholar
Varner, G. 2012. Personhood, Ethics, and Animal Cognition (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varner, G. 2017. A two-level utilitarian analysis of relationships with pets, in Pets and People: The Ethics of our Relationships with Companion Animals, ed. by Overall, C. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 64–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Višak, T. 2016. Do utilitarians need to accept the replaceability argument?, in The Ethics of Killing Animals, ed. by Višak, T. and Garner, R. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 117–35.Google Scholar
Višak, T., and Garner, R. (eds). 2016. The Ethics of Killing Animals (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Williams, B. 1985. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Williams, B. 1988. The structure of Hare's theory, in Hare and Critics: Essays on Moral Thinking, ed. by Seanor, D. and Fotion, N. (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 185–96.Google Scholar
Wolfson, D. J., and Sullivan, M.. 2004. Foxes in the hen house: animals, agribusiness, and the law: a modern American fable, in Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, ed. by Sunstein, C. R. and Nussbaum, M. C. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 205–33.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. 2016. Emotion versus cognition in moral decision-making: a dubious dichotomy, in Moral Brains: The Neuroscience of Morality, ed. by Liao, S. M. (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 87–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar