Consequentialism is thought to be in significant conflict with animal rights theory because it
does not regard activities such as confinement, killing, and exploitation as in principle morally
wrong. Proponents of the “Logic of the Larder” argue that consequentialism results in an
implausibly pro-exploitation stance, permitting us to eat farmed animals with positive well-
being to ensure future such animals exist. Proponents of the “Logic of the Logger” argue that
consequentialism results in an implausibly anti-conservationist stance, permitting us to
exterminate wild animals with negative well-being to ensure future such animals do not exist.
We argue that this conflict is overstated. Once we have properly accounted for indirect effects,
such as the role that our policies play in shaping moral attitudes and behavior and the
importance of accepting policies that are robust against deviation, we can see that
consequentialism may converge with animal rights theory significantly, even if not entirely.