Abstract
The most popular and convincing arguments for the claim that vegetarianism
is morally obligatory focus on the extensive, unnecessary
harm done to animals and to the environment by raising animals
industrially in confinement conditions (factory farming). I outline
the strongest versions of these arguments. I grant that it follows
from their central premises that purchasing and consuming factoryfarmed
meat is immoral. The arguments fail, however, to establish
that strict vegetarianism is obligatory because they falsely assume
that eating vegetables is the only alternative to eating factory-farmed
meat that avoids the harms of factory farming. I show that these arguments
not only fail to establish that strict vegetarianism is morally
obligatory, but that the very premises of the arguments imply that
eating some (non-factory-farmed) meat rather than only vegetables
is morally obligatory. Therefore, if the central premises of these
usual arguments are true, then strict vegetarianism is immoral.