c o n t a c t
If we were considering the ethics of human slavery, then we'd give little weight to the arguments of ethicists who were slaveowners - not because the slaveowners were necessarily insincere, but because the human capacity for self-serving bias is so deep-rooted. So what about the ethics of nonhuman animal exploitation? Are meat-eaters No, I don't think citing the risk of self-serving bias on its own disqualifies the logic of the larder. And no doubt lifelong vegetarians have biases of their own, e.g. maybe they're unusually prone to signaling their caring disposition to prospective mates or whatever. But I find it almost literally incredible to think that any ethicist accustomed to a meatless diet who considered the logic of this larder Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply kidding themselves .