I was told to post this here. The original title was "The problem with peanut consumption and making life safer for those with severe allergies"
This is something that I have been thinking about for some time, and I believe an argument can be made that we should stop consuming peanuts, primarily to make the world a safer place for those with peanut allergies. This might sound kind of silly to some people, but hear me out.
The reality is that when it comes to allergies severe enough to be deadly, peanuts are pretty clearly the most notorious example. While not the most common allergy overall, peanut allergies tend to be the most deadly of the common allergies, and life is considerably more dangerous for those who are allergic to peanuts. The blame for this inherent danger can be laid squarely on the rest of us, and our usage of peanuts in various forms of food. The fact is, by using peanuts in cooking, confectionaries etc., we are significantly increasing the likelihood of someone with a severe peanut allergy being unwittingly exposed to peanuts, and thus we are contributing significantly to the number of allergic reactions caused by peanuts, and the number of deaths that result from said allergic reactions.
My position is this: consumption of peanuts is not important enough to justify the risk we are subjecting those who are allergic to peanuts to. That is to say, enough people are severely allergic to peanuts to where we SHOULD make the fairly modest sacrifice of simply not consuming peanuts in order to accommodate for these people. We can make the world a much safer place for those with peanut allergies by doing this pretty simple thing, and the "harm" caused by not consuming peanuts is in reality negligible.
This position does raise some questions however. Consider a person who decides to open a restaurant. With regards to serving food that contains peanuts, they have 2 options. Option 1 is to serve dishes that contain peanuts, and option 2 is to not serve dishes that contain peanuts. Taking option 1 may make some customers a bit happier, but it will also considerably increase the chance of any given non-peanut dish being contaminated with peanuts, and thus considerably increases the chance of someone with a severe peanut allergy dying as a result of an allergic reaction to a dish that was supposed to be peanut free. This is a reality that cannot be avoided. This raises the question: is it moral to have these potentially deadly legumes in the kitchen, knowing that this can easily lead to someone's death, and if someone DOES die from an allergic reaction to peanuts, does the restaurant owner's decision to serve dishes that contain peanuts make them morally responsible for that person's death? To be honest, I find it difficult to declare that the restaurant owner is morally responsible in this case. I think the blame rests more on the general public, who create a demand for food containing peanuts. Where there is a demand, there will be a supply. This is a simple fact. I think we as consumers would need to be willing to make the sacrifice of not consuming peanuts in order to make peanut-free restaurants and food manufacturers a reality.
The main objection to this position would be a slippery slope argument. While peanuts allergies are the leading cause of allergy-related deaths, the truth is any allergy can be deadly, and there are so many potential allergens out there that it is impractical to make the world allergen-free. So where do we draw the line? I believe peanut allergies are severe and common enough to where we can draw the line at this point, but I freely admit that this is subjective. Another objection I could see is that while the benefit to an individual person from being able to consume peanuts is negligible, the combined benefit of everyone who is not allergic to peanuts being able to consume peanuts may not be. I obviously don't believe this is the case, but I can at least see this argument being made.
What are your thoughts on this?
TheLobsterCopter5000 t1_irrow6n wrote
Reply to /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | October 10, 2022 by BernardJOrtcutt
I was told to post this here. The original title was "The problem with peanut consumption and making life safer for those with severe allergies"
This is something that I have been thinking about for some time, and I believe an argument can be made that we should stop consuming peanuts, primarily to make the world a safer place for those with peanut allergies. This might sound kind of silly to some people, but hear me out.
The reality is that when it comes to allergies severe enough to be deadly, peanuts are pretty clearly the most notorious example. While not the most common allergy overall, peanut allergies tend to be the most deadly of the common allergies, and life is considerably more dangerous for those who are allergic to peanuts. The blame for this inherent danger can be laid squarely on the rest of us, and our usage of peanuts in various forms of food. The fact is, by using peanuts in cooking, confectionaries etc., we are significantly increasing the likelihood of someone with a severe peanut allergy being unwittingly exposed to peanuts, and thus we are contributing significantly to the number of allergic reactions caused by peanuts, and the number of deaths that result from said allergic reactions.
My position is this: consumption of peanuts is not important enough to justify the risk we are subjecting those who are allergic to peanuts to. That is to say, enough people are severely allergic to peanuts to where we SHOULD make the fairly modest sacrifice of simply not consuming peanuts in order to accommodate for these people. We can make the world a much safer place for those with peanut allergies by doing this pretty simple thing, and the "harm" caused by not consuming peanuts is in reality negligible.
This position does raise some questions however. Consider a person who decides to open a restaurant. With regards to serving food that contains peanuts, they have 2 options. Option 1 is to serve dishes that contain peanuts, and option 2 is to not serve dishes that contain peanuts. Taking option 1 may make some customers a bit happier, but it will also considerably increase the chance of any given non-peanut dish being contaminated with peanuts, and thus considerably increases the chance of someone with a severe peanut allergy dying as a result of an allergic reaction to a dish that was supposed to be peanut free. This is a reality that cannot be avoided. This raises the question: is it moral to have these potentially deadly legumes in the kitchen, knowing that this can easily lead to someone's death, and if someone DOES die from an allergic reaction to peanuts, does the restaurant owner's decision to serve dishes that contain peanuts make them morally responsible for that person's death? To be honest, I find it difficult to declare that the restaurant owner is morally responsible in this case. I think the blame rests more on the general public, who create a demand for food containing peanuts. Where there is a demand, there will be a supply. This is a simple fact. I think we as consumers would need to be willing to make the sacrifice of not consuming peanuts in order to make peanut-free restaurants and food manufacturers a reality.
The main objection to this position would be a slippery slope argument. While peanuts allergies are the leading cause of allergy-related deaths, the truth is any allergy can be deadly, and there are so many potential allergens out there that it is impractical to make the world allergen-free. So where do we draw the line? I believe peanut allergies are severe and common enough to where we can draw the line at this point, but I freely admit that this is subjective. Another objection I could see is that while the benefit to an individual person from being able to consume peanuts is negligible, the combined benefit of everyone who is not allergic to peanuts being able to consume peanuts may not be. I obviously don't believe this is the case, but I can at least see this argument being made.
What are your thoughts on this?