The animal liberation movement, among other goals, seeks an end to the use of animals for food. The philosophers who started the movement agree on the goal but differ in their approach: deontologists argue that rearing animals for food infringes animals’ inherent right to life. Utilitarians claim that ending the use of animals for food will result in the maximization of utility. Virtue-oriented theorists argue that using animals for food is callus, self-indulgent, and unjust, in short, it’s an unvirtuous practice. Despite their different approaches, arguments for vegetarianism or veganism have a common step. They move from the notion of suffering to the conclusion of vegetarianism or veganism. In this paper I suggest that the notion of animal suffering is not necessary in order to condemn the practice of animal farming. I propose the possibility of defending vegetarianism or veganism on the basis of arguments that do not rest on the notion of animal suffering, but rather rely on aesthetic principles, the avoidance of violence, and preservation of the environment, and health.

中文翻译：

---

动物的痛苦真的很重要吗？从苦难到素食主义的转变

除其他目标外，动物解放运动还寻求结束使用动物作为食物。发起这场运动的哲学家们同意目标，但他们的方法不同：义务论者认为，饲养动物作为食物侵犯了动物固有的生命权。功利主义者声称，停止使用动物作为食物将导致效用最大化。以美德为导向的理论家认为，以动物为食是老茧、自我放纵和不公正的行为，简而言之，这是一种不道德的做法。尽管他们的方法不同，素食主义或纯素食主义的争论有一个共同的步骤。他们从痛苦的概念转向素食主义或纯素食主义的结论。在这篇论文中，我认为不需要动物痛苦的概念来谴责畜牧业的做法。