Rocio asked:

I find myself in a philosophical dilemma. The problem is that while I am firmly vegetarian, due to the
belief that there is no justification of murder, I still wonder if this argument can lead to ridiculous
conclusions. Such as would I not, to commit to my claims, be able to swat a fly, or spray for ants or
stomp on a cockroach. I am at a plateau in my thought. Perhaps there is truly no dilemma, if one
merely refers to the intention of the agent; in so far as murder is justified. However, how can this
justification be sufficed by mere convenience of living conditions. Non-vegetarians would probably
think that this is trivial, but I truly think that animal rights have been widely overlooked, save Peter
Singer. Some thoughts on this subject would be of great help.

============

The case for Vegetarianism assumes that we do not need to eat meat to survive. The fact that meat
is very tasty and nutritious is not sufficient to justify killing animals for food. However, in a possible
world where human beings were physically incapable of surviving without eating meat, killing animals
for food might be justified as the lesser of two evils.

Everything therefore turns on the question of 'living conditions'. Even if killing sentient life is wrong in
itself, killing pests which threaten human life is justified as the lesser of two evils. On the other hand,
the fact that the buzzing of a fly annoys me and prevents me thinking about philosophy is not
sufficient to justify swatting the fly. I just have to put up with the noise.

It is true that many people are inconsistent vegetarians. Insects generally get a hard deal, because
they are less able to attract our natural sympathy. I would say that the Vegetarian who would swat a
fly without a moment's thought is being inconsistent.

But how do you decide which of two alternatives is the 'lesser of two evils'? Singer has argued that in
certain circumstances, we ought rationally to save the life of a chimpanzee in preference to that of a
human being. Without the aid of some ultimate principle - like the 'Utilitarianism' of Jeremy Bentham
and John Stuart Mill which Singer relies on - there seems to be no way of deciding hard cases. For if
you say, as a matter of principle, 'Humans first', then it does look as if the slightest inconvenience to
humans would justify the killing of non-human animals.

In other words, if you do not subscribe to the moral philosophy of Utilitarianism, it is hard to be a
consistent, principled vegetarian.

Geoffrey Klempner