The Least Harm Principle May Require that Humans Consume a Diet Containing Large Herbivores, Not a Vegan Diet

  • Steven L. Davis

Abstract

Based on his theory of animalrights, Regan concludes that humans are morallyobligated to consume a vegetarian or vegandiet. When it was pointed out to him that evena vegan diet results in the loss of manyanimals of the field, he said that while thatmay be true, we are still obligated to consumea vegetarian/vegan diet because in total itwould cause the least harm to animals (LeastHarm Principle, or LHP) as compared to currentagriculture. But is that conclusion valid? Isit possible that some other agriculturalproduction alternatives may result in leastharm to animals? An examination of thisquestion shows that the LHP may actually bebetter served using food production systemsthat include both plant-based agriculture and aforage-ruminant-based agriculture as comparedto a strict plant-based (vegan) system. Perhapswe are morally obligated to consume a dietcontaining both plants and ruminant(particularly cattle) animal products.

animal production animal rights least harm moral vegetarianism vegan 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Comstock, G., Is There a Moral Obligation to Save the Family Farm? (Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA), p. 400.Google Scholar
  2. Edge, W. D., “Wildlife of Agriculture, Pastures, and Mixed Environs,” in D. H. Johnson and T. A. O'Neill (eds.) Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington (Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR, 2000), pp. 342–360.Google Scholar
  3. Francione, G. L., Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA, 2000), p. xx.Google Scholar
  4. Johnson, I. P., J. R. Flowerdew, and R. Hare, “Effects of Broadcasting and Drilling Methiocarb Molluscicide Pellets on Field Populations of Wood Mice, Apodemus sylvaticus,” Bull. Environ. Contam. and Toxicol. 46 (1991), 84–91.Google Scholar
  5. Kerasote, T., Bloodties: Nature, Culture, and the Hunt (Random House, NY, 1993), pp. 232, 233, and 254, 255.Google Scholar
  6. Kingsolver, B., Prodigal Summer (Harper Collins, NY, 2001), pp. 322–323.Google Scholar
  7. Nass, R. D., G. A. Hood, and G. D. Lindsey, “Fate of Polynesian Rats in Hawaiian Sugar Cane Fields During Harvest,” J. Wildlife Management 35(1971), 353–356.Google Scholar
  8. PETA. EatTheWhales.com, 2001.Google Scholar
  9. Pollard, E. and T. Relton, “A Study of Small Mammals in Hedges and Cultivated Fields,” J. of Applied Ecol. 7 (1970), 549–557.Google Scholar
  10. Regan, T., A Case for Animal Rights (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1983), pp. 266–329.Google Scholar
  11. Shapiro, L. S., Applied Animal Ethics (Delmar Press, Albany, NY, 2000), pp. 25–36.Google Scholar
  12. Taylor, A., Magpies, Monkeys, and Morals: What Philosophers say about Animal Liberation (Broadview Press, Ontario, Canada, 1999), p. 87.Google Scholar
  13. Tew, T. E. and D. W. Macdonald. “The Effects of Harvest on Arable Wood Mice,” Biological Conservation 65 (1993), 279–283.Google Scholar
  14. Tew, T. E., D.W. Macdonald, and M. R.W. Rands, “Herbicide Application Affects Microhabitat Use by Arable Wood Mice Apodemus sylvaticus,” J. of Appl. Ecol. 29(1992), 352–359.Google Scholar
  15. USDA, www.nass.usda.gov/Census/Census97/highlights, accessed 2000.Google Scholar
  16. Wooley, Jr., J. B., L. B. Best, and W. R. Clark, “Impacts of No-Till Row Cropping on Upland Wildlife,” Trans. N. Amer. Wildlife and Natur. Resources Conf. 50 (1984), 157–168.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven L. Davis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Animal SciencesOregon State UniversityCorvallisU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations