Question

I was having a discussion with a friend recently on whether it is beneficial, overall, for us to be vegetarian for farm animals, from a consequentialist viewpoint. Currently, farm animals are bred in extremely large numbers in farms, out of which a large portion is for human consumption. If there is more vegetarianism in the world, then the breeding of farm animals would reduce drastically as the demand falls.

This means, that a lot of lives that could have existed would not exist if vegetarianism becomes substantially more popular.

This brings us to the nonidentity problem. If farm life is worth living for animals, then non-vegetarianism actually improves the overall welfare. If farm life is worse than not existing for animals, then killing all farm animals is an improvement over letting them continue to live.

1. Is my interpretation of the nonidentity problem in this context correct?
2. Particularly, is the second part of killing all farm animals covered in the nonidentity problem? If not, is this part still logically sound? If not, how?
3. What are some other problems with this line of argument, if any?

Answer 1

The interpretation of the nonidentity problem concerning vegetarianism's impact on animals is complex but logically sound in considering potential and existing animal lives. Economic, cultural, and ethical considerations add layers of complexity to the discussion, making simple conclusions difficult.

Step-by-step explanation:

The interpretation of the nonidentity problem in the context of whether being vegetarian benefits farm animals from a consequentialist viewpoint has some merit. If life on a farm is deemed worth living for animals, increasing vegetarianism could indeed be said to reduce overall welfare by reducing the number of animal lives. On the other hand, if farm life is judged as a negative existence for animals, vegetarianism could improve welfare by not bringing these lives into suffering. The proposed solution to 'kill all farm animals' isn't covered by the nonidentity problem directly since it doesn't concern future potential lives but rather the lives of current animals.

There are several considerations that complicate this argument. The attachment to meat and its value in diets, indicated in Lusk and Norwood's study, suggests a strong cultural and preference-based barrier to shifting towards vegetarianism. Additionally, Purdy points out that many vegans aim to avoid animal products altogether, not just for sustainability but for ethical reasons.

Farming's role in economies and societies, as outlined by Schulz and Sparks, also complicates the issue, indicating that shifts in dietary trends can have economic and social impacts. Animal welfare, employment, and cultural values intertwined with meat consumption make simple conclusions elusive, suggesting that ethical considerations in food production, consumption, and research are complex and multifaceted.