@alexbenjalbert wrote an excellent post yesterday, In defence of meat: Reflections on society, ethics, experience, and current scientific knowledge – Part II, about the moral implications of eating meat. I do have to admit that the tasty pic he included in the post drew me to the "meat" of his argument.
I have always considered myself as a bit of a utilitarian in my moral foundation, and I was surprised to find out that utilitarian argument has been used to argue against meat-eating. I was even more surprised to be informed that Bentham (one of the "founding" utilitarian philosophers had included animals within the range of his moral calculations. So I decided to write a summary of Utilitarianism and in doing so to reacquaint myself with the theory.
Post Overview:
- Underlying Assumptions
- A History of Utilitarianism
- The Hedonistic Calculus
- Meat is Murder, Tasty Tasty Murder
Underlying Assumptions
One of the first things to understand in the definition of morality is that you have to establish a common ground for discussing it, or you will talk right past the person you are discussing it with. There are two basic divisions in moral definition; deontological morality and utilitarian morality. These establish a priority in how morality is defined. Under deontological definitions, the intent of the action is how morality is defined, while under utilitarian premises, the result is what matters.
Emmanuel Kant is the foremost name in defining deontological philosophy; as "opposed" to the utilitarian Bentham. Let's take an oversimplified look at his views:
Kant proposes the study of duty as deontology. Kant contradicts utilitarian theory with the accusation that those theorists ignored the concept of duty. He thought that “the key to morality is human will or intention, not consequences.”(Braswell, McCarthy, and McCarthy,2010, p.16) Kant also proposed that there were “categorical imperative”, moral directives to be followed at all times. One of Kant's “categorical imperatives” is “universalizability”. “The basic idea of universalizability is that for my action to be morally justifiable, I must be able to will that anyone in relevantly similar circumstances act in the same way.”(Braswell, McCarthy, and McCarthy,2010, p.17) A second “categorical imperative” is “the fact that human beings have intrinsic value” (Braswell, McCarthy, and McCarthy,2010, p.18) However, Kant is wrong in almost every facet. He contradicts himself with the concept of “universalizability “ with the caveat that circumstances be “relevantly similar”; to judge “relevant” circumstances is to open the floor to double standard and hypocrisy. The idea that ALL humans have intrinsic value is simply wrong, The only value that tyrants and murderers have is negative.
The Moral Imperatives of Beer at the Sergeant's House
And these different definitions (as well as different approaches within these two schools of thought) have real life, not academic, impact.
When Kant sets his key position on the basis of “good intentions”, he may as well label his philosophy as “the road to hell”.
The Moral Imperatives of Beer at the Sergeant's House
Another item to consider is that there are divisions within these "schools of thought", that there are attempts to reconcile the two schools, and that there are other approaches to the definition of morality. The point is that I can't just lecture you on morality, and assume that you and I have the exact same idea of what morality is.
I do wish to contend that the greatest advances in philosophy were made during the time that Bentham created the Hedonistic Calculus;. Hume,Smith, Hobbes (Leviathan, as much of a bitch as it is to read should still be studied today -quick note, I personally still haven't blundered all the way through it, but when you understand wth Hobbes is saying, you understand what a clear grasp of human nature he had), et al. The next greatest discussion of philosophy doesn't come until Karl Popper introduces the philosophy of science. Human thought reached it's peak at this time, and has declined steadily under various collectivist ideologies and their excuse-makers and propagandists.
So let's move on to a summary of Utilitarianism. To begin with, we should understand that Utilitarianism is a set of related theories, and as I stated, there are differences in thought within these theories. However, the basic idea is that Man is motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Morality, therefore, is provided by providing the greatest amount of pleasure and the minimum amount of pain to the largest amount of people possible, thus resulting inutility. This is measured by the result of actions. This is why I use the title description of a logic based moral system.
A History of Utilitarianism
Although Bentham is regarded as the leading figure in Utilitarianism, the ideas behind the philosophy were not new, and some of the principles had been included in college texts since 1712. IMHO opinion, Bentham's greatest contribution to the discussion was the introduction of the Hedonistic Calculus, which allows for measuring and comparing the amounts of pleasure and pain of the participants in a moral decision.
John Stuart Mill was the next contributor to utilitarian thought, and his major addition to this set of ideas was the "proof" of what he called Principle of Utility. Argumentation over this "proof"is a staple of philosophical debate. I'll let you make your own decision:
The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it... In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it… No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness… we have not only all the proof which the case admits of, but all which it is possible to require, that happiness is a good: that each person's happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons.
John Stuart Mill
Mill had his differences with Bentham over aspects of utility, and each interpretation in turn has had it's difference with it's predecessors (btw, this is not a full listing - rather it is a jumping off point for those of you that would like to know more):
- Ideal utilitarianism
- Act and rule utilitarianism
- Two-level utilitarianism
- Negative utilitarianism - Karl Popper again, with the modification to the basic idea that Man avoids pain rather than seeks pleasure
From my own perspective, it is the concept of the Hedonistic Calculus that carries the most weight in determining the results of an action, and thus is determining the morality of that action. I do not consider this a case of double standard, as I would in Kan't univerziibilty, because the calculus can be used in each situation - situations are different in circumstance each and every time.
The Hedonistic Calculus
- Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
- Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
- Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
- Propinquity or remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur?
- Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind.
- Purity: The probability that it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
- Extent: How many people will be affected?
Remember that the matrix can be used in determining measures of both pleasure OR pain.
One thing that I focus on in decisions in using the Calculus is the idea of Certainty, especially when considering the real life ramifications in security policy. If you have an enemy whose ideology and doctrines demands that he kills you or enslaves you, and who has attacked you in the past, preemptive action is morally justified due to the Certainty that he will attack you again.
Meat is Murder, Tasty Tasty Murder
Now that we have the basic overview of the philosophy, let's return to @alexbenjalbert's post.
First off, did Bentham address animals within the calculus?
Modern utilitarians often make this claim (Singer), using this quote
"the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?
(For Bentham on animals, see Ch. XVII Note 122)
But wait, there's more...much more. Bentham said the following specifically regarding the eating of tasty tasty animals (from the same chapter, same note):
If the being eaten were all, there is very good reason why we should be suffered to eat such of them as we like to eat: we are the better for it, and they are never the worse. They have none of those long-protracted anticipations of future misery which we have. The death they suffer in our hands commonly is, and always may be, a speedier, and by that means a less painful one, than that which would await them in the inevitable course of nature
Now Bentham does argue against tormenting animals, and the argument can be made that our livestock techniques are in fact tormenting the animals. While it is a valid argument, I do not consider it to be a credible one. I would say that he presents a better case against dressing your pets up in silly costumes!
Even looking past Bentham's specific statement on killing animals for their meat, we can look back at the Hedonistic Calculus to make our own moral decision regarding meatriculture; I personally would use Certainty, Purity, and Extent.
There is no Certainty that an animal locked into a cage, forbidden exercise, and stuffed full of food is tormented; it certainly doesn't seem to affect a large part of the human population to sit around the house, gorging and lying on their asses doing nothing but watching TV...maybe we should put large screen TV's in the slaughterhouses and make the animals watch Oprah. Naw, that's torture!
The Purity is involved in the quick kill aspect of slaughtering (although Bentham does address this specifically).
Finally, due to the Extent of humans that benefit from meat, I would set out the chopping block on this point alone.
So yank off that chicken's head and spit that hog, meat's back on the menu!
Damn it, now I WANT a steak!
References:
Utilitarianism
An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, by Jeremy Bentham 1781
Two different philosophies of policing
John Stuart Mill
Great review of utilitarian theory and an interesting approach to the ethics of meat eating. I also read and enjoyed @alexbenjalbert 's post "In Defense of Meat".
As a vegetarian, I can imagine finding many ways to twist the hedonistic calculus to support animal liberation and I could also imagine further utilitarian evidence that meat eating is acceptable. It's a by product of utilitarian ethics that a certain level of subjective judgement goes in to deciding whether something will be moral. You can't actually sort out whether something was right or wrong from a pure utilitarian standpoint until after the event. Then you can complete the calculus. There are rule based forms of utilitarianism as well, but they will also be plauged by value judgements about what is suffering, what is pleasure, and what actions promote pleasure over suffering.
I could go on and on, and I will when I write my own follow up ;)
I enjoyed your piece and included it in today’s #philosophy-review. Keep up the great posts!
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@aaanderson/the-philosophy-review-12-6-2016
Exactly! At some point, you have to make underlying definitions,. As some people are more concerned with animal welfare than others (and I am not one of those), the suffering of animals carries more weight in those judgements.
Well said, and followed
First, there is nothing even remotely utilitarian about Utilitarianism. Bentham was all wet...Mill is only damp (actually, he wrote brilliantly against censorship "If all the world was of one opinion...") Tyrants and murderers DO have a purpose as Thomas Sowell so eloquently points out "even the worst of us can serve as a bad example." Hobbes was the ultimate pessimist. He believed that we should surrender all our liberties to the state to avoid a life "nasty, brutish and short." Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, is one of the more brilliant pieces on morality I have ever read (and it's much harder to digest than Leviathan). Smith held the Chair of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow for a number of years, he was an economist only in a very abstract sense. I do like Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic but beyond that all I can think of to say positive about him is that he was very punctual. We must also factor in that slaughter methods have improved immensely since Bentham...as odd as it may sound Hitler was responsible for many advancements toward the ethical treatment of food animals. Now I want a steak as well!
Hobbes is often interpreted as being an absolute statist , but Harrington (2005) argues that it is the idea of liberty that puts Hobbes’s philosophy into full sensibility.
there is a quote from Hobbes that makesprfect sense in that regard
Harrington, R. (2005). Hobbes and liberty: the subject’s sphere of liberty in Leviathan. Retrieved from http://www.artificialhorizon.org
I will have to read Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments; and it not surprising that Smtih delved into economics from a position of moral query; economics is directly tied to human happiness.
were doing fried rice for dinner. I should have written this article on steak night!
Smith was wrote the Wealth of Nations as a criticism of Mercantilism...his economic experience consisted of a brief stint as a customs official. He wrote Moral Sentiments much earlier (1752 I believe) and I believe it to be a moral blueprint to support his system of economics. As for Harrington's perspective on Hobbes, here's another view on the formation of the state and obligation of citizens.
: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2938736
Olson is a remarkable guy, I saw him present this at the APSA conference in '93 when I was there presenting a paper on NAFTA...I think you'll enjoy his perspective.
here isthat file on pdf
http://www.svt.ntnu.no/iss/Indra.de.Soysa/POL3503H05/olson.pdf
The JSTOR setup is a pin in thekeister, especially sine i don'thave theschool login anymore ;)
"The Grasping Hand"...perfect!
Thought you'd like it...that was supposed to be the pdf file I posted...I always said I'm no techie! lol
I'll add it to my Zotero library...I' about 4 months behind on it's maintenance anyway ;>
In my view, classical utilitarianism (Bentham, Mill, Sidgwick/ Smart) shatters on the realization of what Adam Smith called the "vicarious affects" (e.g., sympathy). While the moral calculus of classical utilitarianism requires that "each is to count for one; no one for more than one," ordinary interpersonal bonds lead naturally to differential treatment. It is not only understandable but also morally right that a mother should give far greater weight to the interests of her child than the interests of a perfect stranger. But the moral calculus of Bentham only works if the parties involved are essentially interchangeable. We cannot with moral propriety ask that a person value the welfare or happiness of all fellow humans equally.
I always thought Hobbes was a product of his abusive and turbulent times. Only his ability to write for years on end without deadly hand cramps makes him an important philosopher.
I had steak and I credit Temple Grandin with the single most powerful effect on the humane treatment of meat animals. Brilliant to make ease and profitability the product of more humane butchery.
Interesting woman.
For the most part,we have treated our livestock with humanity when we slaughter...I'll modify that statement by sayn that most humans don't seek to cause pain and fear in their meat animals. of course, there will always be sickos that do intend pain and fear in animal and humans, but luckily they are few in number
For most of our history yes, but there was a recent period, which she took us past, where industrialization made slaughterhouses really horrible. Factory engineers designing animal management was not the best idea.
ohhh tell me about it. It's really quite disturbing to see how engineers became seriously disconnected from animal scientists, and didn't design facilities AT ALL with animals in mind. That is thankfully changing, and changing quickly.
Many thanks for posting this summary. I should have taken the time to do my research more in depth, but I am not surprised that groups like PETA have co-opted a reasonable point of view and distorted it to fit their narrative (which is usually about narrative over fact).
I would like flesh out (pun not intended) your point about animals suffering in farming. Agriculture has gone through many revolutions in the past, including products of the industrial revolution, like milking machines and tractors, through to genetic and agronomic breakthroughs like the green revolution. Being privy to a lot of what's going on in the industry right now, I would say we are currently undergoing a welfare and environmental revolution.
As far as livestock are concerned, we have gained a lot of knowledge about their genetics, biology, nutrition, and health needs in the last 30-40 years. Even the worst farms have arguably more balanced nutrition for their animals than the average North American person's diet. With that being said, we have neglected the behavioural and welfare aspect of raising animals, and that is an exploding area of research, that is also being taught to agriculture and veterinary students alike. As @baerdric correctly pointed out, Templin Grandin is an icon and pioneer in this area, but the ball has kept rolling since then. I personally predict we will see massive changes in the next decade or so in how we house and care for animals.
there is no way you can learn everything, so no need to feel bad about not researching an incredibly complicated subject.
In exchange for that summary, you have given me an insight into our food production process, which infinitely more important to society than arguing about what some guy that has been dead for centuries said ;>
and great point about PETA et al distorting what has been said; that was something I hinted at in the assumptions section, but didn't want to get get bogged down in.