Are human actions that bring non-humans into existence justified because existence itself is a good?
Many answer affirmatively: The cow has the chance to live a life due to our actions, so our actions have [at least] some moral validity.
So the argument goes, "Yes, The animal is forcibly conceived, treated utterly disgracefully, coerced to exist in an unnatural environment, and killed at a point in their life that far precedes their natural life span" (or some variant of this scenario). However, to exist is better than non-existence: "We are doing the animal a favor by allowing her to live life, regardless of the nature or length of the life; being able to experience life is better than never being born at all." So, as the argument concludes, "Our actions, no matter how unnatural and inherently cruel they are, allow animals that wouldn't otherwise have the opportunity to exist, to have a life."
- The chicken that was slaughtered to provide me with his flesh desired to be born prior to his actual conception - the chicken had an interest in being alive during his pre-life existence.
- The life force that eventually became the pig had an interest in our intervention in the affairs of the mother and father pigs because this intervention resulted in the conception of the baby pig that was formerly the life force with the initial interest.
Does that sound reasonable or just stupid? How's this: prior to my conception, prior even to my mother and father meeting one another (this could regress infinitely), the life force that was 'me' desired to be born. Reasonable or stupid? Those who choose the former are appropriately labeled the latter.
To justify our exploitation of animals by appealing to such non-reason is to reach a conclusion of moral significance through intellectual trickery, or more accurately, intellectual dishonesty disguising pure self-interest.
Leave a comment