The logical consequences of Utilitarianism and the Principle of Equality

Abstract: The particular brand of Utilitarianism that Peter Singer and other philosophers since have advocated is incomplete.  The true effects of what Singer takes to be evident truths are far more far-reaching than the simple vegetarian/vegan/environmentalist alternative that Singer wishes we subscribe to.  Simply put: consistency requires Singer to accept the demise of the human race, along with all other carnivoristic, omnivoristic, and parasitic species.

Introduction

See abstract :).

Proof

Peter Singer accepts several truths as intuitively sound.  The first of these is the principle of equality that we use in humans— such that black people are not inferior to white people nor midgets to tall people—is itself incomplete.  He argues, in various degrees of convincingness, that this should naturally extend to all creatures who can feel pain and pleasure.
The argument from marginal cases has been made before with greater effect, so that it would be completely ridiculous for us to accept “human” as a defining concept: it is either too exclusive (eliminating retarded, mentally ill, senile, or young people) or too ill-defined.
Thus, Singer accepts the ‘humanity’ of other creatures. From this, he argues that we must logically choose vegetarianism over meat-eating.
But wait.

Thought Experiment 1:
Suppose for a moment that everyone suddenly became vegan.  Suppose animal products were eliminated and all animals lived in the wild.
Humans would still need to consume resources to live.  Not only that, but the resources they’d consume, and the ways they’d go about consuming them would still create pollution and destroy forests and wildlife.
If human and animal suffering is equal, then it follows that choosing one over the other cannot be morally justified (other than by “I knew him better” logic).  Thus, if a person cuts down a tree and can reasonably assume it will kill an otter or a deer, then the person can reasonably infer that this action will create a greater amount of suffering over pleasure.  The action cannot be justified by Peter Singer’s standards.

This will also be the case, one may find, from every other instance of human interaction there arises a simple thought experiment in which the Principle of Equality forces us to refrain from actions.
Up until this point, everything is simply rehashing older arguments (termite infestations forcing people to vacate the property, etc.).  The true consequences of Singer’s position follow herein.

Thought Experiment 2:
Travis Purcell refuses to recycle. He also refuses to stop eating meat, stop using bleached paper, and stop buying soap that contains Sodium Tallowate.  Travis works two jobs and studies full-time.  When he comes home at night, he is tired.  He is as good of a friend as he can possibly be.  He buys his friends food whenever he can and is nice to everyone, but his schedule keeps him constantly tired and —even if he stopped to consider the consequences of all of his actions— he simply does not have enough time to go shopping for alternative supplies.
It can be reasonably inferred that Travis will create 100 dolors of pain every week for the rest of his life because of the effects his shopping and living selections have on the economy, life, and the environment.
Eli Carver is a militant vegan who grows all of his own food, lives ‘off the grid’ and does all he can to maximize the overall hedons and minimize the overall dolors of every creature he encounters.
One day, Eli meets Travis and stabs him in the neck.  As Travis is dying, he experiences 1000 dolors of pain, shock, and awe.

Discussion.

Did Eli do anything wrong?
Would Peter Singer think that Eli did anything wrong?

Logic.

1. I can reasonably infer that humans, predators, and parasites create more pain than pleasure throughout the course of their lives.
2. If I can reasonably infer that humans, predators, and parasites create more pain than pleasure throughout the course of their lives, then it is immoral for me to not quickly kill any human, predator, or parasite that I run across.
3. Therefore, it is immoral for me to not quickly kill any human, predator, or parasite that I run across (1, 2, MP).

Points of contention.

Whether this is an appropriate judgment is up for debate.  Some people will disagree with morality in general, consequentialism in general, Utilitarianism in general, the belief that our ‘lack of’ action is not tantamount to an action, the disbelief in the logic that our consumption has any influence whatsoever on the actions of a third party in a third-world country, or any number of other objections that ignore the specific points I bring up in this piece.
It can be argued that premise 2 implies a hidden general principle 2 that can be stated as follows: “If I can reasonably infer that the consequences of an action (or non-action) will create more pain than pleasure, then it would be amoral for me to commit such an action.”  Denying this will deny Utilitarianism in general, rather than this paper in particular.
It can also be argued that this does not extend to killing, thereby implying a third-party scheme of morality and thus de facto denying consequentialism in general.
It can be argued that some species’ pain or pleasure is worth more than other species’ pain or pleasure.  This can be argued coherently, but not without demanding some sort of specific definition of humanity and a damn good explanation for why our species (or our set of species) deserves more moral considerability than others.
I could spend several more pages responding to possible objections, but I feel that this will be overkill for those who understand my argument and those that do not understand it never will.

Conclusion

Kill all of your closest friends and family members.

🙂  Any questions?

Abstract: The particular brand of Utilitarianism that Peter Singer and other philosophers since have advocated is incomplete.  The true effects of what Singer takes to be evident truths are far more far-reaching than the simple vegetarian/vegan/environmentalist alternative that Singer wishes we subscribe to.  Simply put: consistency requires Singer to accept the demise of the human…