1) Meat requires more water to produce than vegetables.
2) Due to the demand of meat products (Beef, Chicken, Pork) there is a huge increase in methane gas.
3) Meat demands continue to increase
This is probably one of the most subjected/debated topics currently, and when analyzing the ethical perspectives you can narrow it down to two points of views. The first view is the Consequentialist view point where the actions taken must do whatever to produce a good outcome, and the main concern is to be sure good results occur. The other view is the Non-Consequentialist view point is based on the moral value of the action and not on its consequences.
“Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.” (Pagnamenta 2009) This was said by Lord Stern of Brentford.
Anyone reading the statement with a Consequentialist view would say a few things relating to the overall happiness. For this particular example the water consumption that affects the climate would matter the most. The reason for this is because when water is removed, organisms that require water would perish. Overall the main objective is to increase the aggregate happiness, if the consequence leads to an increase of happiness a Consequentialist would approve. The happiness is based upon whether the public’s willingness to becoming vegetarians, if this overall happiness decreases then it is decided that the Consequentialist would decide not to perform the action. In this case the majority of the public decided to continue eating meat.
From a Non-Consequentialist view point the same action would be viewed differently. The decision on whether the action is to be taken or not, is based on morality. In this example it would be very difficult since this is based on person’s moral values. Each individual has their values influenced in different environments and could change. A Non-Consequentialist would say that if eating meat is causing problems to our conservation of water and climate, I will stop eating meat.
Although the two different perspectives are different in many ways, it all depends on where your position is. Each point of view has its own concerns and importance, it can help to understand why some individuals feel one way and others feel another.
Reference:
Pagnementa, Robin. "Climate chief Lord Stern: give up to save the planet." Climate chief Lord Stern: give up to save the planet. Timesonline. Web. 4 Nov. 2009.
I was curious at how your last sentence about non-consequentialism in this circumstances contradicted the rest of the paragraph. If it's based on a person's moral value, than wouldn't a non-consequentialist say, 'If eating this animal is wrong, I will stop eating meat', rather than 'If it is causing problems to the environment, I will stop eating meat'? Unless the person is prescribing more value to the environment than to the animal (ecoholism rather than sentientism I guess).
ReplyDeleteI thought it was well perceived, you took a very large problem that has been talked about around the world and resumed it into a quick detailed resume. I do agree that the last sentence is a bit contradicting although it depends on the way you read it.
ReplyDeleteI liked how you defined the two different views and related it back to the issue of eating meat. I think in the last sentence, he was saying that we all have different believes and values in life which fit into different named viewpoints.
ReplyDelete