Kantianism And Utilitarianism

After reading the Ethics of What We Eat, one may conclude that there are two normative principles that can be applied when ruling the ethics behind our food (Utilitarianism and Kantianism). Utilitarianism, which focuses on the consequences of actions, emphasizes that actions are right in proportion when they promote happiness and wrong as they tend to reverse it. On the contrary, Kantianism does not concern itself with the consequences in considering what’s right or wrong. Instead, what’s right is not the maximization of happiness, but the morality of the actions that lead to such happiness. Because of these opposite ideologies, using animals for food, its environmental impact, and its impact on global poverty can be controversial. Animals

Also, since higher grain prices lead to starvation on a global scale, Utilitarians would support Kantians in that using much of the grain produced to feed animals is unethical. Moreover, Kantians do not believe that animals are self-conscious and are there only as a means to an end (humans). However, cruelty to animals leads to cruelty to humans so it is in our best interest to treat animals humanely. As a result, Kantians argue that humanity must stray away from the current method used to farm animals because taste alone is not a good enough reason to justify the way we treat them. On the other hand, Utilitarians argue that the way animals are treated lead to the greatest good for the greatest number of people because it generates the most resources to feed the world. However, because of its negative impact on the environment, and the indirect harm it causes to humanity (unethical), Utilitarians might argue that the method used to deal with animal waste is unethical (focusing on consequence and not the action). Kantians on the other hand, might argue the action of placing waste in a space specifically created for that purpose is ethical and does not have to be