An Objection and Argument About Animal Ethics

Roger Scruton is an English philosopher who is known for his conservative and traditional views. One of his main views that has caught the attention of many philosophers and people in general is his view on animal ethics. In this paper, I will debate against the consumption of animals while also arguing that Scruton’s argument is not convincing because his premises do not lead to his conclusion.

Roger Scruton was born in 1944 in Buslingthorpe, United Kingdom. In regard to education, he studied philosophy at Jesus College and University of Cambridge. Along with being a philosopher, Scruton is an advanced writer and author who has written at least 30 books covering topics over philosophy, politics, art, religion, literature, etc. Roger Scruton is known for having traditionalist views, encountering the idea of being conservative while he was in France. He observed a student protest in 1968 where students were being destructive to property. He saw the students in this protest as selfish, foolish, was disgusted by them, and realized he had a more traditionalist approach and view of topics.

Animal Rights and Wrongs was written by Roger Scruton where he argued for the consumption of meat. The novel was published in 1966, published again in 1998, and a third time in 20000. The novel proposed the question if animals really do have rights, what those rights are, and if us humans have obligations to these rights. This novel created some controversy because of Scruton’s conventional take on animal rights. In the book, Scruton discusses his thoughts on hunting, the moral status of animals, morality and the law, and the suffering of animals. Scruton’s argument is in the defense of eating animals. Scruton explains how animals would not exist if we didn’t eat them, meaning it is okay and right to eat animals. He is insinuating that there are many farm animals out in the world because we breed them, give them antibiotics, and take care of them before their deaths.

Scruton’s Argument:

• If we didn’t eat animals, they would not exist.
• If it was wrong to eat animals, then this would be the case because eating animals violates their interests.
• Eating animals is not against their interests, because if we did not eat them, they wouldn’t exist at all.

Conclusion

Scruton’s argument falls short because his premises do not lead to the conclusion that it is morally right to eat animals. His first premise states that if we didn’t eat animals, that they would not exist. He is insinuating that we are the reasons a species exists, we get to take advantage of them, and use them as our resources because they wouldn’t be alive without us eating them. One could compare this same situation to parents having children. Just because parents are the reason their children exist, it does not mean they have the right to use them for their own resources or do whatever they want to them. Using Scruton’s logic, a child could be getting abused by their parents, but it would be okay and fair because the child would not exist without their parents. I agree with Cora Diamond as she critiques Scruton by saying he doesn’t see animals as fellow creatures on this earth, but more of as something that we can eat or control.

A second objection to Scruton’s argument is that there are many animals we do not eat, who survive in the wild every day. 60% of mammals are farm animals, meaning 40% are wild animals who are all capable of surviving in the wild. If we didn’t eat farm animals, they could have a chance to make it into the wild and could survive longer periods of time than they would being kept by humans. These animals would be able to live naturally and not waiting in factories before their deaths. In addition, other wild animals’ habitats are being destroyed by farmers making room for farm animals to graze in their spots. This cycle potentially could kill wild animals in these habitats, animals that would have been saved in humans didn’t eat meat.

A third objection to Scruton’s argument is these animals that are kept for their meats are not always protected, cared for, fed, etc. Scruton makes the assumption that a life kept by humans is better than not being born at all. Although, many animals are not cared for when they catch diseases, are uncomfortable, could be ripped from their families, and are tortured before being slaughtered. These farm animals are also not gained access to sunlight and in tight quarters with other animals with limited freedom. Animals are not given the choice of not existing at all over lives of torture. Not breeding these animals would decrease their population size, but they would not go extinct. If more people stopped eating animal meat, the rigorous breeding would be required to slow down and could potentially stop all together.

Scruton would respond to these objections by explaining how animals will all die eventually and might have a high risk of dying in the wild, so why not give them a happy and peaceful life before their deaths. He would object that animals suffer in the “animal world” and that we are saving them from a miserable and painful death, suggesting that their death by humans would be more pleasant. Scruton would argue that it is in animals’ best interests to be raised by humans before their death. Scruton would also state how certain animals that were bred by farmers would be extinct if humans didn’t eat animal meat.

I would respond to his potential objection with various responses. Yes, all animals will die eventually, but their lives are cut much shorter when they are kept by humans instead of being in the wild. Farm animals could learn to adapt to living in the wild, we as humans just have to give them the chance by stopping eating meat. It is also not proven that all animals suffer in the wild, many are able to find safe habitats by themselves or with other animals in their species. They are not always given a happy and peaceful life by humans because they can be impregnated and forced away from their offspring, when they could be caring and spending time with them in the wild. Scruton believes that being kept by humans is in animals’ best interests, but even the most humanitarian and gentle way of killing animals violates their interests, which is staying alive. Additionally, animals are not given a peaceful death as their death could be quite gruesome. I would respond to the objection about how certain animals that are bred by farmers wouldn’t be alive by saying that these animals are no longer our slaves for being domesticated or whatever we want them to do. For example, some dogs in dog fighting are bred for certain traits to make them stronger and faster. Although these breeds might go extinct, at least these dogs wouldn’t be forced to fight each other and would stop getting tortured.

Coming back to the prompt, it is not morally permissible to eat animals. Particularly, it is not morally acceptable to eat a chicken that has been raised for consumption in a chicken factory. The problem is many people eating chicken meat are not aware of the way they are raised by farmers. For example, broiler chickens are bred purposely for meat consumption and to be the most economically effective. These chickens are designed to be double their regular size. Chickens and other modified farm animals have health problems with lungs, legs, hearts, and bones. It is common for chickens to die from heart attacks due to not enough oxygen getting to their oversize breast muscles. These chickens could be homed with thousands of other birds, where units are typically only cleaned once a day and the animals are not fed enough water or food. These close quarters of sheds make it much easier for diseases to spread around.

In addition, chickens and other farm animals are not living a long and peaceful life as they are typically slaughtered in a far less time frame. For instance, a chicken’s life expectancy could be up to 15 years, but broiler chickens’ average lives last for 2 months and hens typically live less than 2 years. Another example is that the cattle life expectancy is two decades, but their lives with farmers typically range from six months to five years. If these animals were set free into the wild, they could possibly reach their total life expectancy. Consuming meat is contributing to the crucial death and short lives of farm animals including chickens, cattle, pigs, poultry, rabbits, ducks, sheep, etc. This everyday meat consumption in places like Bloomington is not ethical and the problem should be addressed to everyone.

The debate on whether consuming animal meat is morally ethical has been alive for decades and will continue to be a main point of controversy in the United States and the entire world. There are countless places in Bloomington where majority of their menus contain animal meat. Many people will eat meat daily and not even realize that they are contributing to the numerous deaths of animals everywhere. Over 100 billion animals are killed every year in just the United States alone. Studies show that meat isn’t even idyllic for our human bodies and can cause major health issues. Heart disease is the number one cause of death in the United States and people who eat meat have roughly around a 30% higher chance of getting heart disease than vegetarians. Americans could lower their chances and possibly prevent getting the disease if they would stop consuming animal meat. There is a common misconception that vegetarians don’t receive enough, if any, protein in their diet. There are many non-meat foods with high levels of protein including eggs, soy, cheese, milk, peanut butter, quinoa, almonds, lentil, and many more. People in Bloomington and all over the country may not aware of these alternative sources of protein because they assuming that meat is the only source of protein. People can already be receiving protein in their daily diet that they don’t know about while also eating large amounts of meat, causing the problem of excess of meat in their diets. Too much protein in the diet could aggravate kidney function because the body might have trouble removing all the waste products coming from protein metabolism. Along with thinking meat is the only source of protein, people who eat meat will also argue that they eat animals, but would never eat their pets at home. Realistically, there is no difference between the animals in our home and the animals on our plate. Consuming animal meat is the same no matter what animal it is. Overall, animals deserve to live in their natural habitats, make their own choices, to eat their normal diets, and to have freedom. Farmers were no longer allowed to keep egg-laying hens in barren battery cages smaller than an A4 sheet of paper. Instead, the minimum requirement now is that hens are kept in a cage the size of an A4 sheet of paper, with an extra postcard-sized bit of shared space that allows them to scratch and nest. These are known as enriched cages.

In conclusion, I have argued that Roger Scruton’s argument falls short because his premises do not lead to his conclusion that it is morally okay to eat animals. I have done this by explaining how animals would exist even if we didn’t eat them and by showing that the consumption of animals is morally unethical. Scruton’s argument shows that we should have control over anything if we are the reason it exists. If we didn’t eat animals, they could have a chance to survive in the wild and avoid their cruel lives and deaths with farmers and factories.