Ethical Theories
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2018 3:24 pm
- Diet: Vegan
Ethical Theories
Hey guys, I'm kind of new to some of these ethical theories and I would like to hear some opinions (and clarifications) on a few of them in regards to veganism. Preferably deontology and consequentialism ethics for the vegan case (or another important theory I might've missed out), some common examples of their strengths and weaknesses within discussion.
-
- Anti-Vegan Troll
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm
Re: Ethical Theories
For veganism a deontology theory typically focuses on animals having specific rights and violations of those rights. So for example if you think an animal has a "right to life" then killing an animal for food would be a violation of that right.
Consequentialist systems of ethics determine the morality of an action by its consequences. For veganism this often amounts to a negative utilitarian theory, that is, a theory where the best actions are deemed those that reduce suffering the most. So eating meat could be seen as morally wrong since it could increase aggregate suffering in the world. In contrast positive theories of utilitarianism are more problematic for veganism, for these theories you think about what actions create the most pleasure. But in both cases you start to include non-human animals into the calculation rather than just humans.
Consequentialist systems of ethics determine the morality of an action by its consequences. For veganism this often amounts to a negative utilitarian theory, that is, a theory where the best actions are deemed those that reduce suffering the most. So eating meat could be seen as morally wrong since it could increase aggregate suffering in the world. In contrast positive theories of utilitarianism are more problematic for veganism, for these theories you think about what actions create the most pleasure. But in both cases you start to include non-human animals into the calculation rather than just humans.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10332
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Ethical Theories
Neutral utilitarian theories balance pleasure and pain, but they also don't do it naively.
E.g. people DO get pleasure from eating meat, but you have to look at other available foods and assess whether those would also be pleasurable. So you can't just weigh the pleasure of eating meat against animal suffering, you would weigh the pleasure of eating meat *minus* the pleasure of eating a non-meat alternative (like the impossible burger, if you're looking at burgers) against animal suffering.
So, NOT this:
Pleasure from eating burger (100) > Animal suffering to make it (75)
But THIS:
(Pleasure from eating burger (100) - Pleasure from impossible burger (75)) < Animal suffering to make the burger (75)
This is saying that animal suffering is more bad than the difference in pleasure between an impossible burger and a dead animal burger.
Even if meat is slightly more delicious than the impossible burger, this difference in pleasure isn't likely comparable to the amount of suffering caused to produce the meat burger.
You can also look at acclamation. Replacing meat might cause initial distress in meat lovers, but over time people would get used to it and it would level off. Kind of how taking coffee away from caffeine addicts would cause a lot of short term suffering, but then they'd stop being dependent on it and find new things to enjoy. Then the next generation wouldn't even miss it. Their lives *might* even be better without being dependent on caffeine.
Utilitarians play a long game.
There are also non-utilitarian consequentialist theories, like altruism. Utilitarianism is the most spoken about and studied, though, so it's a good starting point for learning about these things.
Make sure you also look into the difference between hedonistic ("classical") and preference utilitarianism.
Hedonistic versions deal only with pleasure and pain (so killing somebody painlessly when they don't know it's coming isn't a harm, but depriving them of future pleasure could be a loss). Preference based systems look at what you actually want (so that painless killing is a harm if you wanted to live).
E.g. people DO get pleasure from eating meat, but you have to look at other available foods and assess whether those would also be pleasurable. So you can't just weigh the pleasure of eating meat against animal suffering, you would weigh the pleasure of eating meat *minus* the pleasure of eating a non-meat alternative (like the impossible burger, if you're looking at burgers) against animal suffering.
So, NOT this:
Pleasure from eating burger (100) > Animal suffering to make it (75)
But THIS:
(Pleasure from eating burger (100) - Pleasure from impossible burger (75)) < Animal suffering to make the burger (75)
This is saying that animal suffering is more bad than the difference in pleasure between an impossible burger and a dead animal burger.
Even if meat is slightly more delicious than the impossible burger, this difference in pleasure isn't likely comparable to the amount of suffering caused to produce the meat burger.
You can also look at acclamation. Replacing meat might cause initial distress in meat lovers, but over time people would get used to it and it would level off. Kind of how taking coffee away from caffeine addicts would cause a lot of short term suffering, but then they'd stop being dependent on it and find new things to enjoy. Then the next generation wouldn't even miss it. Their lives *might* even be better without being dependent on caffeine.
Utilitarians play a long game.
There are also non-utilitarian consequentialist theories, like altruism. Utilitarianism is the most spoken about and studied, though, so it's a good starting point for learning about these things.
Make sure you also look into the difference between hedonistic ("classical") and preference utilitarianism.
Hedonistic versions deal only with pleasure and pain (so killing somebody painlessly when they don't know it's coming isn't a harm, but depriving them of future pleasure could be a loss). Preference based systems look at what you actually want (so that painless killing is a harm if you wanted to live).