Zoe Johnson: Is it immoral to kill animals for food?

December 2019

Peter Singer provides a foundational way of approaching one’s actions through the idea of the Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests. In his book, Practical Ethics, he defines this principle like this: “The essence of the principle of equal consideration of interests is that we give equal weight in our moral deliberations to the like interests of all those affected by our actions.” In other words, no person should be valued over another, nor should any personal bias be included in our decision making and chosen actions. Every person holds the same significance, and no person is more important than another.

However, Peter Singer does not stop at human beings with the application of this principle. He references the founder of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, who considered suffering a defining component that qualified a species for equal consideration. Animals can feel pain and therefore suffer just like humans can and should therefore be treated with equal consideration.

But, as Peter Singer also writes, animals cannot suffer to the capacity that humans can. For example, a human being with a terminal illness is much more aware of their fate than an animal is. Yes, the cow or horse or dog is also suffering, but there are no emotional or biased thoughts like humans have in the midst of their suffering. Peter Singer alludes to the idea that “pain is pain,” but I believe that to be false. Human beings have a greater capacity to form opinion, feelings, prejudices, and therefore they suffer at a higher level than animals do because they have a greater depth of emotional feeling and capability. Pain for an animal is merely pain, and they suffer because they are uncomfortable. For human beings, pain is not only pain, it is a hindrance to others or a disability that prevents them from providing for themselves.

I want to clarify that I love animals too. I grew up with them, have named them, and I plan to have a dog as soon as I graduate college. I know that animals can have personalities and even preferences for things as people do. However, I do not think that the Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests can be applied here. Animals do not exist at the heightened level of self-awareness as human beings do, and therefore are not “equal” to human beings. Also, although I also defend the absolute illegalization of the mistreatment of animals, considering animals to have “interests,” according to Peter Singer’s definition, is not applicable. Can animals have “interests?” The word “interest” implies concern, personal involvement, and even bias towards something. I know that my childhood dog seemed to love me and protect me, but I did not see her having a bias or personal involvement in anything.

As Peter Singer writes, a human life is not equal to an animal life. That is not to say that animals should suffer, nor should they be mistreated for any reason. However, if one applies the Equal Consideration of Interests Principle to the killing of animals for food as the moral foundation for one’s reasoning, it is not immoral to kill animals.