Jordan Curnutt claims that utilitarian based arguments to defend vegetarianism are inadequate. He presents his own argument, NEW, for vegetarianism and exposes flaws in various attempts to override the prima facie duty of not harming animals.
Utilitarian arguments can both favor and oppose vegetarianism. Several philosophers have insisted that utilitarian based arguments require that people eat meat because it improves the economy, helps people who work in the meat industry, and because people enjoy eating meat. Opposing this view, other utilitarian arguments say that vegetarianism is required because killing animals is a violation of their rights and it uses animals as a means to our own ends. The utility-based arguments require that many factors be measured to make a moral decision. Factors such as the number of humans who eat meat and their pleasure and the number of animals killed and their displeasure must be summed and compared. These different arguments regarding vegetarianism are similar in that they use controversial evidence to support their claims, which prevents the argument from being settled (Timmons, 2007, pg. 413). As a result, Curnutt believes that a unique, uncontroversial argument must be developed.
Curnutt presents NEW, his own argument for vegetarianism. NEW does not measure utility, rights, or suffering, it only appeals to morals based on a prima facie duty. Curnutt believes that his argument is better because it does not rely on unclear measurements or disagreeing rights-based claims. NEW is based on the prima facie assumption that harm is wrong whether or not any suffering occurs. Killing animals is harmful because you defeat all of the animals’ interests in living a healthy life. Curnutt holds that NEW should be used in future opinions of vegetarianism and will provide more adequate and concrete arguments for the wrongness of eating meat. Because NEW is based on prima facie morals, there may be circumstances in which the wrongness of eating meat is overridden (Timmons, 2007, pg. 415). Curnutt explains why vegetarianism is not superseded by tradition, esthetics, convenience, and nutrition. The first concern that people may use to claim that the prima facie duty not to harm (as applied to animals) is overridden is tradition. Curnutt objects the idea that tradition can override the wrongness of eating animals by using the example of slavery. Slavery was once entrenched deeply in culture and practiced for many generations. It was a cultural custom that exploited and used innocent people for their labor. Slavery was not decided to be wrong because the tradition disappeared; it was decided to be wrong because it had severe moral implications. Curnutt claims that tradition cannot carry any moral power and therefore cannot be used as an objection to vegetarianism (Timmons, 2007, pg. 419). Second, esthetics may be …show more content…
Eating meat is convenient at various social gatherings and restaurants because the high supply of it makes meat a cheap food product. Just because eating meat is convenient does not say anything about its moral standing. It is often convenient to take advantage of a powerless person and inconvenient for a parent to care for their children, however that cannot make such things morally right. Curnutt upholds that just because something is convenient, does not make it morally right, and therefore it cannot be used as grounds to override vegetarianism (Timmons, 2007, pg.
Utilitarian arguments can both favor and oppose vegetarianism. Several philosophers have insisted that utilitarian based arguments require that people eat meat because it improves the economy, helps people who work in the meat industry, and because people enjoy eating meat. Opposing this view, other utilitarian arguments say that vegetarianism is required because killing animals is a violation of their rights and it uses animals as a means to our own ends. The utility-based arguments require that many factors be measured to make a moral decision. Factors such as the number of humans who eat meat and their pleasure and the number of animals killed and their displeasure must be summed and compared. These different arguments regarding vegetarianism are similar in that they use controversial evidence to support their claims, which prevents the argument from being settled (Timmons, 2007, pg. 413). As a result, Curnutt believes that a unique, uncontroversial argument must be developed.
Curnutt presents NEW, his own argument for vegetarianism. NEW does not measure utility, rights, or suffering, it only appeals to morals based on a prima facie duty. Curnutt believes that his argument is better because it does not rely on unclear measurements or disagreeing rights-based claims. NEW is based on the prima facie assumption that harm is wrong whether or not any suffering occurs. Killing animals is harmful because you defeat all of the animals’ interests in living a healthy life. Curnutt holds that NEW should be used in future opinions of vegetarianism and will provide more adequate and concrete arguments for the wrongness of eating meat. Because NEW is based on prima facie morals, there may be circumstances in which the wrongness of eating meat is overridden (Timmons, 2007, pg. 415). Curnutt explains why vegetarianism is not superseded by tradition, esthetics, convenience, and nutrition. The first concern that people may use to claim that the prima facie duty not to harm (as applied to animals) is overridden is tradition. Curnutt objects the idea that tradition can override the wrongness of eating animals by using the example of slavery. Slavery was once entrenched deeply in culture and practiced for many generations. It was a cultural custom that exploited and used innocent people for their labor. Slavery was not decided to be wrong because the tradition disappeared; it was decided to be wrong because it had severe moral implications. Curnutt claims that tradition cannot carry any moral power and therefore cannot be used as an objection to vegetarianism (Timmons, 2007, pg. 419). Second, esthetics may be …show more content…
Eating meat is convenient at various social gatherings and restaurants because the high supply of it makes meat a cheap food product. Just because eating meat is convenient does not say anything about its moral standing. It is often convenient to take advantage of a powerless person and inconvenient for a parent to care for their children, however that cannot make such things morally right. Curnutt upholds that just because something is convenient, does not make it morally right, and therefore it cannot be used as grounds to override vegetarianism (Timmons, 2007, pg.