Extreme scenarios
It's common to hear questions like these:
- "If you were on a desert island and only had an animal to eat, wouldn't you eat it?"
- "If the house were on fire and you could only save a baby or a dog, who would you save?"
The idea is to show that, deep down, everyone would favor humans, so eating animals in everyday life would be justified.
Problem 1: what we'd do isn't always what's right
The argument assumes that what most people would do in a situation like that is automatically right. But when they're desperate, people do lots of things that aren't right.
Problem 2: extremes apply to humans too
In extreme situations, there are reports of people doing terrible things to other humans to survive. Nobody uses that to say those things are acceptable in everyday life. The same goes for animals.
Problem 3: an emergency isn't everyday life
This is the main problem. Whatever the right choice is in a disaster, you can't carry that choice over to a completely different situation.
On the desert island, the issue would be survival. At the grocery store, nobody's life is in danger: there are lots of other food options. Comparing the two is like saying that because it's okay to break a window to escape a fire, it would be okay to break windows for fun.
In short
- What most people would do when desperate isn't necessarily right.
- In extreme situations, people also do things to humans that nobody approves of in everyday life.
- Emergencies don't justify what we do when we have other options.