“I’ll start this by just pointing out that the argument does assume that Consequentialism is true.”
Not it doesn’t! It’s compatible with Nozick’s “Utilitarian for animals; Kantianism for people” view—or even just “Utilitarianism for bugs; Kantianism for people”
Well, that is still assuming that consequentialism is true for animals. Obviously, the counter example in the article wouldn't apply anymore, but it's still assuming that animals don't have rights - which isn't a given
Regarding point #6, I think the impact on wild animals is actually a consideration in favor of high-welfare farms, not against them.
Animal farms take up a lot of land (especially high-welfare farms that give animals a decent amount of space instead of cramming them into battery cages and gestation crates). Presumably this land would have been wild land otherwise.
By preventing them from being born into existence, high-welfare farms spare tons of wild animals from a torturous existence of misery and agony.
This is also why I don’t think pointing out that animal agriculture results in crop deaths than plant agriculture, while true, really shows that animal agriculture is worse than plant agriculture on consequentialist grounds.
It’s not clear that crop deaths result in an overall decrease in utility (maybe the animals killed by combine harvesters would’ve suffered worse deaths in the wild?) and it seems extremely likely to me that replacing wild land with crop land increases overall utility.
To be clear, I am vegan and I think the amount of suffering generated by factory farming outscales the wild animal suffering it prevents (especially when it comes to chickens, who make up 74% of all farmed land animals). I think purchasing factory farmed animal products is egregiously immoral.
I just don’t really think the crops deaths point is as clear-cut as some vegans seem to think it is. I also am unconvinced that the consequentialist case against high-welfare farms succeeds - I think it probably fails.
I'm struggling with pasture land being a problem coming from the Western United States. The land is not that heavily grazed and if it weren't cattle grazing it would be herds of bison. There is no shortage of natural ecologies along side domesticated large grazers, nor are large grazers foreign to the ecologies (as they are largely absent as a result of human activity).
Corn and soy cropland is incredibly high yielding but dominates the ecology. Remote or low quality pasture land is relatively low impact and less calorically efficient. I don't see much marginal utility gain from eliminating pasture land.
“I’ll start this by just pointing out that the argument does assume that Consequentialism is true.”
Not it doesn’t! It’s compatible with Nozick’s “Utilitarian for animals; Kantianism for people” view—or even just “Utilitarianism for bugs; Kantianism for people”
Well, that is still assuming that consequentialism is true for animals. Obviously, the counter example in the article wouldn't apply anymore, but it's still assuming that animals don't have rights - which isn't a given
Regarding point #6, I think the impact on wild animals is actually a consideration in favor of high-welfare farms, not against them.
Animal farms take up a lot of land (especially high-welfare farms that give animals a decent amount of space instead of cramming them into battery cages and gestation crates). Presumably this land would have been wild land otherwise.
By preventing them from being born into existence, high-welfare farms spare tons of wild animals from a torturous existence of misery and agony.
This is also why I don’t think pointing out that animal agriculture results in crop deaths than plant agriculture, while true, really shows that animal agriculture is worse than plant agriculture on consequentialist grounds.
It’s not clear that crop deaths result in an overall decrease in utility (maybe the animals killed by combine harvesters would’ve suffered worse deaths in the wild?) and it seems extremely likely to me that replacing wild land with crop land increases overall utility.
To be clear, I am vegan and I think the amount of suffering generated by factory farming outscales the wild animal suffering it prevents (especially when it comes to chickens, who make up 74% of all farmed land animals). I think purchasing factory farmed animal products is egregiously immoral.
I just don’t really think the crops deaths point is as clear-cut as some vegans seem to think it is. I also am unconvinced that the consequentialist case against high-welfare farms succeeds - I think it probably fails.
I'm struggling with pasture land being a problem coming from the Western United States. The land is not that heavily grazed and if it weren't cattle grazing it would be herds of bison. There is no shortage of natural ecologies along side domesticated large grazers, nor are large grazers foreign to the ecologies (as they are largely absent as a result of human activity).
Corn and soy cropland is incredibly high yielding but dominates the ecology. Remote or low quality pasture land is relatively low impact and less calorically efficient. I don't see much marginal utility gain from eliminating pasture land.