peoplewhotakecaretoeatonlymeatthatcomesfromsuch
animals—butIsuspectthatunlesstheyliveonafarmwhere
theycanlookaftertheirownanimals,theywill,inpractice,
be very nearly vegetarian anyway.^23
Onefinalpointontheargumentthatthelossofananimalis
compensatedforbythecreationofanewone.Thosewhouse
thisingeniousdefenseoftheirdesiretoeatporkorbeefrarely
followout itsimplications. Ifitweregoodto bringbeings
intoexistencethenpresumably,otherthingsbeingequal,we
oughttobringasmanyhumansaspossibleintoexistencetoo;
and if to thiswe add theview thathuman livesaremore
importantthanthelivesof animals—aviewtheflesh-eater
seemssuretoaccept—thentheargumentmaybeturnedonits
head,tothediscomfortofitsoriginalproponent.Sincemore
humansmaybefedifwedonotfeedourgraintolivestock,
the upshot of theargument is, after all, that we ought to
become vegetarians!
Speciesismis sopervasiveand widespreadan attitude that
thosewhoattackoneortwoofitsmanifestations—likethe
slaughter of wild animals by hunters, or cruel
experimentation, or bullfighting—often participatein other
speciesistpracticesthemselves.Thisallowsthoseattackedto
accuse their opponents of inconsistency. “You say we are
cruelbecauseweshootdeer,”thehunterssay,“butyoueat
meat.Whatis thedifference,exceptthatyoupay someone
elsetodothekillingforyou?”“Youobjecttokillinganimals
toclotheourselvesintheirskins,”saythefurriers,“butyou
arewearingleathershoes.”Theexperimentersplausiblyask
why,ifpeopleacceptthekillingof animalstoplease their
palates, they should object to the killing of animals to
advanceknowledge;andiftheobjectionisjusttosuffering,