Peter Singer Utilitarianism

Peter Singer asserts that utilitarianism implies a moral obligation to be a vegetarian. Utilitarianism holds that the right actions, or what we ought to do, are those actions that are expected to produce the best overall consequences, provide maximum utility, happiness or pleasure and minimize pain and suffering. Utilitarians look at the probable consequences of choices and choose their actions based on whatever they believe will produce the most utility or pleasure. Singer claims that if one is a utilitarian, then one ought to be a vegetarian. He agrees with the principle of equality of interests, which states that states all interests ought to be given equal consideration. A being that has the capacity for pain and suffering has an interest in avoiding pain and suffering.
I do, however, object to the assertion that their living conditions cannot be improved without a regression to maltreatment. Singer refers to this as a “slippery slope” (332). Current factory farming and slaughter practices should be reformed. This would be “the most practical and effective step” to end animal cruelty. Animals could be given better and more sanitary living conditions. Less painful methods of killing animals could be employed. This may increase the cost of meat to the consumer, but the increased utility for the animals will far outweigh this cost.
Animals reared in factory farms live in cages, crates, or other confined spaces that do not allow them to move and turn around. These animals suffer injury and bruising from rubbing against the cages, wires and walls of their enclosures. They are forced to live in cramped, overcrowded quarters, surrounded by their own waste. They suffer from brittle bones due to lack of exercise. They are more prone to infections and diseases which spread quickly because of overcrowding. Their lives are filled with suffering due to these