A Response to the Objection
While Tom Regan supports vegetarianism by its lack of violation to animal rights, I would like to respond that even vegetable farming can violate animal rights, and therefore vegetarianism is not so clear-cut of a response.
Ethicist Lawrence Cahoone posits that even vegetable farming is detrimental to animal life. He raises the following issues with farming practices (Cahoone, 79-80):
1. Clearing land for farms destroys natural habitats, disrupting animals’ lifestyle—in particular, their eating and reproductive habits.
2. Industrial agriculture often uses pesticides and nitrogenous fertilizers. The run-off from these products pollutes the water upon which animals depend.
3. Industrial farm machinery destroys animals’ ground nests; amphibians, reptiles, birds, and small mammals are constantly at risk of being injured, maimed, or killed.
4. Farms protective measures of their crops are often hurtful towards surrounding wildlife—think electric fences.
5. Agriculture technology feeds into much indirect harm. As Cahoone describes, “Vegetable nutrition is wrung from the Earth by diesel-burning machinery and nitrogen and oil-based fertilizers, processed and refrigerated with power from river-altering, coal-burning or nuclear-waste-producing plants, driven thousands of miles over asphalt by fossil-fueled trucks.”
These harms show that even vegetable farming poses threats to animal rights and to animal life. As Cahoone states, “it is very likely that agricultural production kills more animals than deer hunting per unit of nutrition” (Cahoone, 81). Vegetarianism does not necessarily respect animal rights. If we consider fair-chase hunting, a targeted shot and kill may cause less suffering than vegetable farming. Cahoone says, “In terms of animal suffering, it would be difficult to show that death from being maimed, crushed, cut to pieces, poisoned or starved is less painful than the average death by hunter” (Cahoone, 81)
Hunting for food has none of these collateral damage issues laid out by Cahoone. Hunting for food respects nature, leaving animals to their wild habitats, with no toxic byproducts and no technological interference to the land. Animal rights are still violated in the modern agricultural industry, so Regan's vegetarianism is not necessarily optimal for animals. I would argue that in the preservation of the wild and the lack of much collateral damage to other animal life, hunting overall has greater respect for animals.
Ethicist Lawrence Cahoone posits that even vegetable farming is detrimental to animal life. He raises the following issues with farming practices (Cahoone, 79-80):
1. Clearing land for farms destroys natural habitats, disrupting animals’ lifestyle—in particular, their eating and reproductive habits.
2. Industrial agriculture often uses pesticides and nitrogenous fertilizers. The run-off from these products pollutes the water upon which animals depend.
3. Industrial farm machinery destroys animals’ ground nests; amphibians, reptiles, birds, and small mammals are constantly at risk of being injured, maimed, or killed.
4. Farms protective measures of their crops are often hurtful towards surrounding wildlife—think electric fences.
5. Agriculture technology feeds into much indirect harm. As Cahoone describes, “Vegetable nutrition is wrung from the Earth by diesel-burning machinery and nitrogen and oil-based fertilizers, processed and refrigerated with power from river-altering, coal-burning or nuclear-waste-producing plants, driven thousands of miles over asphalt by fossil-fueled trucks.”
These harms show that even vegetable farming poses threats to animal rights and to animal life. As Cahoone states, “it is very likely that agricultural production kills more animals than deer hunting per unit of nutrition” (Cahoone, 81). Vegetarianism does not necessarily respect animal rights. If we consider fair-chase hunting, a targeted shot and kill may cause less suffering than vegetable farming. Cahoone says, “In terms of animal suffering, it would be difficult to show that death from being maimed, crushed, cut to pieces, poisoned or starved is less painful than the average death by hunter” (Cahoone, 81)
Hunting for food has none of these collateral damage issues laid out by Cahoone. Hunting for food respects nature, leaving animals to their wild habitats, with no toxic byproducts and no technological interference to the land. Animal rights are still violated in the modern agricultural industry, so Regan's vegetarianism is not necessarily optimal for animals. I would argue that in the preservation of the wild and the lack of much collateral damage to other animal life, hunting overall has greater respect for animals.