It is unclear to me about the consequentialist case, but it would seem to be a subset of the poor meat-eater problem.
The post seems more in a deontic mode that use of animals in this way is exploitative and wrong regardless of the consequentialist benefit. I also find this view fairly unattractive, and I suspect many deontologists would agree: deontic theories are often ‘speciesist’, as they tend to have higher thresholds for personhood or moral concern, ones which livestock (unlike women, children, different ethnic groups, etc.) do not satisfy.
Accord.
It is unclear to me about the consequentialist case, but it would seem to be a subset of the poor meat-eater problem.
The post seems more in a deontic mode that use of animals in this way is exploitative and wrong regardless of the consequentialist benefit. I also find this view fairly unattractive, and I suspect many deontologists would agree: deontic theories are often ‘speciesist’, as they tend to have higher thresholds for personhood or moral concern, ones which livestock (unlike women, children, different ethnic groups, etc.) do not satisfy.