What is the problem of replaceability?

In I. Anna S. Olsson, Sofia M. Araújo & M. Fátima Vieira (eds.), Food futures: ethics, science and culture. Wageningen Academic Publishers. pp. 52-58 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Singer’s much-discussed replaceability argument states that non-self-conscious animals may be killed and replaced by new animals that will lead equally valuable lives. If sound, this argument can be used to justify the cycle of raising and killing animals for food. Thus, many have argued that Singer’s theory, and utilitarianism in general, while committed to this argument, offers inadequate protection to animals. However, some utilitarians reject the argument and Singer himself was rather tentative in preventing its additional application to self-conscious beings. This tension, within utilitarianism, about how to best deal with the argument is the core of what I call ‘the problem of replaceability’. My main goal here is to provide a precise description of this problem. Firstly, I distinguish between the general question of replacement permissibility and the specific question of whether (a certain version of) utilitarianism implies the replaceability argument. Focusing on the specific question I set the problem apart from other known objections to utilitarianism, like the value receptacles objection and some replacement-like difficulties. I also compare two versions of the replaceability argument and advance a better one. Finally, I point out how different interpretations of the argument affect the way out of the problem. I hope this understanding of the problem offers helpful insight to possible solutions and to further investigate its importance to animal food production and animals’ moral status.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,322

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Utilitarian killing, replacement, and rights.Evelyn Pluhar - 1990 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 3 (2):147-171.
Utilitarian alternatives to act utilitarianism.Sanford S. Levy - 1997 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 78 (1):93–112.
Value Receptacles.Richard Yetter Chappell - 2015 - Noûs 49 (2):322-332.
Singer on killing and the preference for life.Michael Lockwood - 1979 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 22 (1-4):157 – 170.
Peter Singer's Argument for Utilitarianism.Stephen Buckle - 2005 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 26 (3):175-194.
Animal rights: moral theory and practice.Mark Rowlands - 2009 - New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Food fight! Davis versus Regan on the ethics of eating beef.Andy Lamey - 2007 - Journal of Social Philosophy 38 (2):331–348.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-10-11

Downloads
81 (#202,255)

6 months
14 (#170,850)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Ricardo Miguel
Universidade de Lisboa

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references