Home / E. Relativism, freedom and evasions / Part DIR
"Even philosophers don't agree."
disagreement isn't a tie. Philosophers disagree about almost everything, including how to ground human rights, and no one concludes that anything goes. On the question of animals there is strong convergence: the main ethical theories condemn unnecessary suffering, and it's hard to find a philosopher who defends factory farming as it exists. Among specialists in ethics, most consider eating mammal meat morally bad.
Short answer
Philosophers disagree about almost everything, and no one concludes from that that anything goes. On the question of animals there's a strong point of convergence: the main ethical theories condemn unnecessary suffering, and it's hard to find anyone who defends factory farming as it exists. In a survey of ethics professors in the United States, about 60% rated regularly eating mammal meat as morally bad.
For children
Doctors sometimes disagree about which medicine is best. But they all agree you shouldn't give a patient poison. It's similar with philosophers: they disagree about many details, but almost all agree that making animals suffer without need is wrong.
"Do you know any philosopher who defends factory farming as it is today?"
Como pode aparecer
"It's an open debate."
"Some philosophers defend eating meat."
"If even they can't agree, why should I change?"
"Peter Singer is just one philosopher among many."
"There is reasonable disagreement about the moral status of animals."
"Great thinkers ate meat." (which is D10)
The strongest version
"It's an open debate. Some philosophers defend eating meat."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Competent philosophers disagree about the moral status of animals.
- P2When experts disagree, laypeople can't be required to adopt a position.
- CSo everyone can carry on with their practice, including eating meat.
P1 is true: there is disagreement, especially about details. The problem lies in P2: disagreement among experts doesn't make all positions equally reasonable, and the points of convergence are already enough to condemn most of what happens.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P2, and the argument ignores what philosophers have in common.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument treats every disagreement as a tie. But there are degrees of agreement:
Question Is there convergence? Is causing animals unnecessary suffering wrong? Yes, broad Does factory farming cause unnecessary suffering on a large scale? Yes, broad Is killing an animal painlessly wrong? More disagreement Do animals have rights in the same sense as humans? Theoretical disagreement Disagreement on the lower questions doesn't affect the conclusion of the upper ones, which is already enough to condemn almost all the meat that is consumed.
- b
Where the argument breaks
1. Disagreement isn't a tie.
Every field of knowledge has disagreements, and that doesn't make all positions equivalent. Philosophers also disagree about how to ground human rights.
2. The main theories converge.
Utilitarianism condemns unnecessary suffering; rights theories condemn using sentient beings as means; virtue ethics condemns cruelty; contractualism, in its recent versions, has been extended to animals. By different routes, they reach similar conclusions.
3. Ethics specialists lean one way.
In a survey of US professors, about 60% of ethics specialists rated regularly eating mammal meat as morally bad, compared with about 20% of professors in other fields.
4. Defenses of factory farming are rare.
Even philosophers who defend eating meat usually defend only forms very different from current production, such as animals raised with a good life and killed painlessly (B5).
5. The argument usually serves to end the conversation.
But when you look at what philosophers say about animals, the conclusion is clearer than the phrase suggests.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Schwitzgebel, *The Moral Lives of Ethicists* About 60% of ethics specialists rated regularly eating mammal meat as morally bad A survey done with Joshua Rust; the same study shows their behavior didn't change to the same extent PhilPapers Survey 2020 About 26% of philosophers accept or lean toward vegetarianism as an ethical position, and 18% toward veganism The question is about what is permissible to eat; together the two positions reach about 44% - d
The strongest counter-reply: even the experts eat meat
The most serious version points out that, in the same study, ethics specialists ate meat almost as much as other professors. If not even those who study the subject change, the moral conclusion can't be that clear.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Behavior doesn't measure truth.
The study shows that knowing what's right isn't enough to change, not that the conclusion is wrong (E12).
The counter-reply confirms the convergence.
The specialists think it's wrong, even if not all of them change.
The difficulty of changing is a practical problem.
It's a reason to create conditions for change, not to deny the problem.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
False balance
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Not knowing the debate
Disagreement as absence of an answer
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Using disagreement as an excuse
Biases
Motivated reasoning
Disagreement is remembered only where it excuses change
General literature on motivated cognition
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if experts disagree, I can do as I please".
If it applied to…Climate changeTap to see
One dissenting scientist would be enough to ignore the problem
No sensible person accepts this
If it applied to…Human rightsTap to see
Philosophical disagreement would be enough to disregard them
No one accepts this
If it applied to…MedicineTap to see
One dissenting doctor would be enough to refuse any treatment
No one accepts this
Contradictions
Philosophers disagree about how to ground human rights, and no one concludes that anything goes.
Even though some philosophers deny we have direct duties to animals.
The argument usually comes without any author.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's true that there is philosophical disagreement about animals, and that it's serious: there are legitimate discussions about the value of animal life, the strength of duties and borderline cases. Recognizing this is a sign of intellectual honesty.
But
But the disagreement is in the details, not at the center. Almost everyone agrees that unnecessary suffering is wrong, and that's already enough to condemn most of what happens to animals today.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after
Go deeper in Questão de Ética
Chapters from the open-access collection A Journey Through Animal Ethics that discuss this argument in more detail:
- Is the Rejection of Speciesism Compatible with Only One… Vol. II, ch. 7
- To What Extent Do Ethical Theories Agree About What We… Vol. XI, ch. 6