The Ethics of Food Production

[bbarrick8383]

I’m not sure why you think free range and organic farming is such an unrealistic option. Of course it’s unrealistic when people are unprepared to change the way they think about where their food comes from, but I’m certainly not alone in seeking better alternatives to factory farming and feedlots. I don’t know what it’s like in America, but here in Australia, just as an example, free range eggs have been available for years, and organic eggs are increasingly available. The availability of alternatives to battery-cage eggs has brought down the price considerably. Given time and increased awareness, progress towards humane farming methods can be made. But it requires willingness to make changes.

If everyone dropped eating non-free range eggs right now, and started buying free range, you would not be able to get them. They would be in such demand and the price would go up. Now, companies would look for a way to create more free range eggs, but that would incur higher costs for those eggs.

Same thing with my cows, if I decided to start selling them to people as an alternative to the meat they bought in the store, I’d sell out. And the fact is, there are medicines that you have to give cows in order to keep them healthy. I’d incur higher cost for more land if I wanted to provide more beef to people. And frankly, even here in Oklahoma where there is an abundance of it, there are a multitude of ranchers and the land is all broke up.

As with just about everything in life, knowledge is the key. People can’t change anything if they don’t know what alternatives are available. This is a large part of the problem for people who live in entrenched poverty. Often they actually don’t know how to help themselves, because poverty is all they’ve ever known. This is especially true of the world’s poorest people, whose entire communities are mired in poverty - for many, it is the only life they’ve ever known.

That is an assumption. People know how to deliver themselves from poverty, most of them dont want to. I helped build a house in Florida for a Dr. who grew up in a trailer park here in the mid-west. He’s a multi-millionaire now, and he will tell you. The people who live like that want to live like that. They spend what money they do have on stuff like beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets. It’s “their” way of life. I’m of course speaking for the most part on America’s poorest areas, not the world. I’ve never been outside the U.S. other than Canada.

Perhaps I didn’t phrase that very well. There’s plenty of room for simple happiness when one chooses to seek it. The world economy, however, would crumble if everyone sought simple happiness instead of the accumulation of material wealth. A market-driven society does not encourage simple happiness.

It would not crumble, it would have to return to a conservative state. Companies like Toyota who make what they sell, those companies will outlast any non-conservative American company in any financial situation. The economy now is due to ignorant people spending what they do not have. But there are lots of people, especially here in the mid-west who still live for simple happiness and only accumulate material things when they can afford to do so.

Which is why public awareness of inhumane treatment of intensively-farmed animals is vital to effecting change. Only when intensive farming no longer makes for a viable business will it cease to occur. Any business has to be profitable enough at least for its owners and employees to be able to make a living. No-one expects people to sacrifice themselves for the sake of running unviable business ventures. But viable does not have to mean exploitative. Here in Western Australia, there are local producers of organic meats whose products are so desired that they must be sold in advance, and then picked up from their markets or farm stores. But this is a completely different business ethic to which people are only just getting accustomed. These producers are not going to expand their businesses to meet demand, because doing so would compromise the quality and the ethical stance of their products - the very qualities that create the demand.

What sets their prices?

I think if you actually looked into the issue, you’d probably be surprised. Like any cause, animal rights has its share of crackpots, but what one generally finds is that people who care about animal rights do so as part of a holistic approach to ethics. Some feel that it is beneath the dignity of humans - who have a choice in how we act, and a subsequent responsibility for the consequences of our actions - to abuse and exploit animals for our convenience. Some feel that a consistent approach to social justice demands consideration of nonhuman animal rights as well as those of humans. If you investigate moderate animal-rights advocacies like the RSPCA (here in Australia), the Humane Society or the Compassion in World Farming organisation, you will find that not a single one of them requires that animal rights be pursued to the exclusion of human rights - only that the real needs and welfare requirements of nonhuman animals be taken into consideration and met, not ignored.

People are doing a pretty good job here in the US fighting for domesticaed animal rights. I’m sure there have been many people looking into the welfare of chickens and other animals bred and slaughtered to be fed to people. That’s what I mean when I say there is little you and I could do about it. Not eating meat is not really going to do a whole lot, other than in my opinion affect the health or health of your decendants. When there is a method capable of producing enough meat in an efficient manner that is cost effective both to the producer and consumer, then and only then things will change.

 

[Marfran]

Nope.The importance of being human & created in the image & likeness of God is at the crux of the issue.We come first.We have dominion over the Earth.Period.The unborn child & the patient on life support always deserve human rights.Their quality of life as opposed to a lamb or chicken should never be at issue.
We also respect God’s creation & use His resources wisely but do not worship creation only the Creator.
Food production in the large scale has worked well overall but in the long run the farmer may profit more from local specialized markets.It’s more a question of economics than ethics.
My guess again, is that animal rights advocates are not human rights advocates in the same sense.

From Friar Jack Wintz at AmericanCatholic.org: Francis saw all Creation as one family. He didn’t see humans as being over and above the other creatures. He believed in a good and loving Creator, and that all creatures should be treated with kindness and love. And since he and they had the same Father in heaven, well, that made him a brother to the violet and the fox.

There are some really great writings on St. Francis–I love him! I really get him! I wish other people did too. God created a beautiful world that we treat poorly. We dishonor God when we abuse animals, when we abuse the planet, and of course when we hurt our fellow human beings as well.

Having dominion over the earth means that we should take care of it, and treat it lovingly.

Loving the world makes it a better place, for everyone. Loving the world does not detract or take anything away from humans–it is enriching to all.

I work with animals and people (wild animals not domestic). I have never met a person who cares about animals but cares less for humans and disregards humans.

Any person who would render aid to an animal in need is also very likely to do the same for his fellow human being.

I’m sorry–I’m probably not following this thread as carefully as I should. I suspect that Sair is not Catholic and/or fails to see how some of his comments are upsetting to Catholics.

Please, you good people, do not turn your backs on any of society’s problems because you do not like the messenger, or the messenger’s way of stating things.

Nowadays if you become aware of a problem, you can easily access much information, and relatively quickly.

Carry on, Cracker Mom!

 

[Sair]

Having dominion over the earth means that we should take care of it, and treat it lovingly.

Loving the world makes it a better place, for everyone. Loving the world does not detract or take anything away from humans–it is enriching to all.

I work with animals and people (wild animals not domestic). I have never met a person who cares about animals but cares less for humans and disregards humans.

Any person who would render aid to an animal in need is also very likely to do the same for his fellow human being.

I’m sorry–I’m probably not following this thread as carefully as I should. I suspect that Sair is not Catholic and/or fails to see how some of his comments are upsetting to Catholics.

Please, you good people, do not turn your backs on any of society’s problems because you do not like the messenger, or the messenger’s way of stating things.

Nowadays if you become aware of a problem, you can easily access much information, and relatively quickly.

When it comes to ethics, I think it’s essential to be consistent. What I see is that granting certain privileges to humans and denying them to other animals, simply on the basis of species, is not consistent.

Every living animal is a centre of experience, and thus entitled to consideration on that basis. Factory farming systematically denies animals the right to carry out their natural behaviours, therefore it is unethical.

I would have thought this was simple, but apparently there are secondary human considertations that many feel should take precedence over the basic, fundamental, primary rights of other animals. I don’t see how this is justifiable. That has always been the thrust of my argument.

 

[4elise]

That is an assumption. People know how to deliver themselves from poverty, most of them dont want to. I helped build a house in Florida for a Dr. who grew up in a trailer park here in the mid-west. He’s a multi-millionaire now, and he will tell you. The people who live like that want to live like that. They spend what money they do have on stuff like beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets. It’s “their” way of life. I’m of course speaking for the most part on America’s poorest areas, not the world. I’ve never been outside the U.S. other than Canada.

Dear bbarrick - you state that someone else’s comment is an assumption - and then you make an assumption in the other direction - because of a story you have been told by one doctor who is now a multi-millionaire - you assume that all the poor in this country are that way because they chose to spend what little they have on beer, cigarettes and lottery to support ‘their’ way of life. I think anytime we lump people into groups (i.e. the poor) and make assumptions about their choices we can then potentially absolve ourselves for any responsibility or looking at how OUR choices may contribute to the situation - there is no them - only us, we are all the beloved children of a loving God.

 

[Biggie]

When it comes to ethics, I think it’s essential to be consistent. What I see is that granting certain privileges to humans and denying them to other animals, simply on the basis of species, is not consistent.

Every living animal is a centre of experience, and thus entitled to consideration on that basis. Factory farming systematically denies animals the right to carry out their natural behaviours, therefore it is unethical.

I would have thought this was simple, but apparently there are secondary human considertations that many feel should take precedence over the basic, fundamental, primary rights of other animals. I don’t see how this is justifiable. That has always been the thrust of my argument.

The natural alternative to granting that the human person is different in kind from other animals and that difference in itself confers rights and privileges is to value human beings because of traits they possess. From this posture springs the evils of abortion, infanticide, experimentation on live human beings and euthanasia. In proposing an equivalence between species based on sentience, for example, Peter Singer has been able to lecture and write justifying exactly these evils.

Who could advocate for intentional cruelty to animals? At the same time it is exceedingly curious in your enthusiasm for animal welfare you, like so many others, find it necessary to create a false equivalence between the animal and the human in order to create a morality for measures that does not exist.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Dear bbarrick - you state that someone else’s comment is an assumption - and then you make an assumption in the other direction - because of a story you have been told by one doctor who is now a multi-millionaire - you assume that all the poor in this country are that way because they chose to spend what little they have on beer, cigarettes and lottery to support ‘their’ way of life. I think anytime we lump people into groups (i.e. the poor) and make assumptions about their choices we can then potentially absolve ourselves for any responsibility or looking at how OUR choices may contribute to the situation - there is no them - only us, we are all the beloved children of a loving God.

I’m sorry that I came back with what sounded like an assumption. It’s not just that story, it’s also what I see every day. Where I live, I can leave my house in any direction and show you local schools that stop at the 8th grade.

There is one school that has all the amenities you would expect from a city school. I live right, smack dab in the middle of poor. I grew up with people who only got to go to town on the weekends, and then it was a trip to Wal-Mart.

I was considered priviledged amongst alot of them, but I am part of the first generation of my local family to be so. My father, grew up with 8 brothers and sisters in a house around 500 sq. ft. No phone, 30 minutes to a hospital, no tv. He picked cotton, fished the red river, went to school and helped take care of the youngest ones, he was second to the oldest. His father died not long after Pearl Harbor was bombed. My father was a straight A student all the way through college, and the only one of his siblings to make a change in his family that would prevent his children from being poor. Me and my brother work hard day in and day out to keep up what he started so that we may actually continue the wealth building that my father began with blood sweat and tears.

It is a fact that the lottery is a tax on the poor. It is a fact that beer and cigarette sales are higher per capita here than in wealthy area. The poor make their choices, and they live with them.

This is the thing though, we do generalise the poor all too often. I do not feel sorry for most of the poor people in my area, they choose that life. Most of them would not have it any other way. I do not, however live in a ghetto so I cant speak for all poor.

When it comes down to it, I am a soft hearted person, I know who the truly deprived poor in my area are. They are the elderly on a fixed income, and I support any and all social programs that will benefit them(Just not from the Feds). And at my young age, I see that I need to protect myself from walking in their shoes at their age.

 

[4elise]

People are doing a pretty good job here in the US fighting for domesticaed animal rights. I’m sure there have been many people looking into the welfare of chickens and other animals bred and slaughtered to be fed to people. That’s what I mean when I say there is little you and I could do about it. Not eating meat is not really going to do a whole lot, other than in my opinion affect the health or health of your decendants. When there is a method capable of producing enough meat in an efficient manner that is cost effective both to the producer and consumer, then and only then things will change.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=326900

I’ve started another thread that I hope goes a bit deeper for those who want to consider more than just suffering animals as a reason to consider a strict vegetarian diet - I want to have a real discussion on how this choice can be influenced by Catholic Social Teaching… Would like to invite you to read that and give your feedback there too…

 

[Sair]

The natural alternative to granting that the human person is different in kind from other animals and that difference in itself confers rights and privileges is to value human beings because of traits they possess. From this posture springs the evils of abortion, infanticide, experimentation on live human beings and euthanasia. In proposing an equivalence between species based on sentience, for example, Peter Singer has been able to lecture and write justifying exactly these evils.

Actually, valuing humans because of traits they possess is not the only alternative to creating an imaginary distinction of kind. Where humans and other animals have the same interests, they should be granted the same rights. Both have an interest in being spared suffering (in other words, avoiding pain) for example, and that should be taken into consideration with regard to humane farming methods. The basis of Singer’s ethical arguments is that of allowing the same rights for the same interests.

Who could advocate for intentional cruelty to animals? At the same time it is exceedingly curious in your enthusiasm for animal welfare you, like so many others, find it necessary to create a false equivalence between the animal and the human in order to create a morality for measures that does not exist.

You’d be surprised at the number of people I have seen doing just that - advocating that humans can treat animals however we like, just because they’re not human. I don’t see that I am creating false equivalence - I am not talking about granting dogs the vote or sending chimps to university! What I see is that those who argue for a human-centred ethic are creating a false distinction between the basic rights of humans and the basic rights of animals, when those rights stem from the same basic needs. Bear in mind that what is known as an animal-centred ethic (of the kind that Singer advocates) must necessarily account for the needs of humans, because we’re animals too.

 

[Biggie]

Actually, valuing humans because of traits they possess is not the only alternative to creating an imaginary distinction of kind. Where humans and other animals have the same interests, they should be granted the same rights. Both have an interest in being spared suffering (in other words, avoiding pain) for example, and that should be taken into consideration with regard to humane farming methods. The basis of Singer’s ethical arguments is that of allowing the same rights for the same interests.

.

Here again, the “equivalency of interest” is a wholly subjective standard requiring an arbiter to interpret the degree of interest exhibited or expected. By that standard, for example, abortion can be justified or even mandated as a means of sparing a handicapped infant at any stage of development future suffering (back to Singer) or as a means of justifying Euthanasia. That interest may be deemed to have been surrendered by the comatose or elderly. Someone must place himself inside the mind or the existence of the other creature to project the state of being from which rights flow. Rights, therefore, are not guaranteed but are fluid.

It is not necessary to turn morality upside down in order to achieve a reasonable understanding of humane treatment for other creatures. I think, however, those who want to deny humanity legitimate use of other creatures to serve human ends will be ever unsatisfied with conventional morality.

 

[Sair]

Here again, the “equivalency of interest” is a wholly subjective standard requiring an arbiter to interpret the degree of interest exhibited or expected. By that standard, for example, abortion can be justified or even mandated as a means of sparing a handicapped infant at any stage of development future suffering (back to Singer) or as a means of justifying Euthanasia. That interest may be deemed to have been surrendered by the comatose or elderly. Someone must place himself inside the mind or the existence of the other creature to project the state of being from which rights flow. Rights, therefore, are not guaranteed but are fluid.

It is not necessary to turn morality upside down in order to achieve a reasonable understanding of humane treatment for other creatures. I think, however, those who want to deny humanity legitimate use of other creatures to serve human ends will be ever unsatisfied with conventional morality.

The latter, of course, depends upon how you define ‘legitimate’, and what scope one allows for procuring those legitimate ends. I recently found out about crocodile farming in Northern Queensland for international reptile-skin markets. The crocodile meat is a by-product in this case (although I’ve never eaten it myself, I’m told it’s quite similar to some kinds of fish in flavour and texture) because the meat yield alone from a crocodile carcass is not sufficient to make raising them solely for food economically viable. Now, although both meat and skins are animal products that can be legitimately needed, crocodile skins are largely used for fashionable handbags and belts, and the meat is generally considered a delicacy, or a luxury product. To what extent does this constitute ‘legitimate’ use for another sentient creature?

Even this is unproblematic compared to the animal-skin trade supplied by parts of China, where animals are skinned alive in their hundreds, even thousands. Does this constitute ‘legitimate’ use?

Determining the interests of a sentient creature is in most cases a matter of simple observation. Although other animals cannot speak, it is clear to anyone experienced in working with or caring for animals when they are in distress. The difference between a healthy animal and a miserable, unwell animal is obvious for anyone who cares to observe. It is not something that is wholly subjective. Neither, for that matter, is the ‘interest’ of an embryo, or the likelihood that a patient in a coma will recover. These can all be determined by medical knowledge and examination. In the latter case, there are an increasing number of people who have discussed the possibility with their loved ones as to whether they wish to be resuscitated or kept alive by medical equipment when there is negligible chance that they will recover on their own. If a fully conscious, thinking person makes such a statement of their interests, should it then be assumed that their interest would change with the loss of consciousness? That, of course, is a subject for another thread entirely, but I think it can serve to illustrate the problems inherent in clinging to a more arbitrary morality in preference to one that allows comparable rights where comparable interests can be discerned.

 

[Biggie]

Sair, I read nothing in your response that addresses the subjective nature of the standard you wish to apply as a guide for when rights should accrue. A living will, as you surely will recognize on reflection, does nothing to relieve sentience of its subjective burden.

Without being repetitive, I find no moral conflict with using animals for food, for their skins, for labor or for any other purpose to which an animal can be used to benefit mankind. How that use is carried out is important in as much as we should be stewards of the animal kingdom.

If you are familiar with the story of Temple Grandin, you will know, for example, that she found that while many people interpreted the misbehavior of cows in slaughterhouses to relate to the cows’ knowledge that they were about to be slaughtered, instead it was the surroundings (lighting, obstacles in the runway, etc.) that in fact caused cows discomfort. Corrected, the animals go to slaughter relatively placidly. Sentience is not what you might think it is.

Finally, I found it curious in an NGO documentary I watched regarding the poisoning of lions in the wild in Kenya by the native population trying to protect their livestock, the documentary showed a lioness who had been poisoned and who was pregnant with four cubs. The narrator clearly stated that five lions had been lost. I wonder if the head count would be the same were the victim human.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Sair, I read nothing in your response that addresses the subjective nature of the standard you wish to apply as a guide for when rights should accrue. A living will, as you surely will recognize on reflection, does nothing to relieve sentience of its subjective burden.

Without being repetitive, I find no moral conflict with using animals for food, for their skins, for labor or for any other purpose to which an animal can be used to benefit mankind. How that use is carried out is important in as much as we should be stewards of the animal kingdom.

If you are familiar with the story of Temple Grandin, you will know, for example, that she found that while many people interpreted the misbehavior of cows in slaughterhouses to relate to the cows’ knowledge that they were about to be slaughtered, instead it was the surroundings (lighting, obstacles in the runway, etc.) that in fact caused cows discomfort. Corrected, the animals go to slaughter relatively placidly. Sentience is not what you might think it is.

Finally, I found it curious in an NGO documentary I watched regarding the poisoning of lions in the wild in Kenya by the native population trying to protect their livestock, the documentary showed a lioness who had been poisoned and who was pregnant with four cubs. The narrator clearly stated that five lions had been lost. I wonder if the head count would be the same were the victim human.

I’ve read Temple Grandin’s book & really enjoyed it.
We assume a lot as human beings.Animals ARE different.We just like to think they are like us and transfer our feelings & perceptions on to them.
It’s funny that we as Americans prospered by “conquering” the frontier & eliminating many of the predators so that we could safely raise livestock but we are not allowing Africans the same options.Ditto for Europe.Seen any wolves roaming around the UK lately?

 

[Sair]

It’s funny that we as Americans prospered by “conquering” the frontier & eliminating many of the predators so that we could safely raise livestock but we are not allowing Africans the same options.Ditto for Europe.Seen any wolves roaming around the UK lately?

Funny…my reading of American history has the European settlers “conquering and eliminating” native American humans…European settlers in Australia did much the same to the Aborigines.

A lot can be achieved if you presume that others’ needs are less important than your own just because they are different.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Funny…my reading of American history has the European settlers “conquering and eliminating” native American humans…European settlers in Australia did much the same to the Aborigines.

A lot can be achieved if you presume that others’ needs are less important than your own just because they are different.

Again, you’re equating animals & humans. I was referring to *animal * predators.

 

[Biggie]

Funny…my reading of American history has the European settlers “conquering and eliminating” native American humans…European settlers in Australia did much the same to the Aborigines.

A lot can be achieved if you presume that others’ needs are less important than your own just because they are different.

What history are you reading? Perhaps Noam Chomsky. The native Americans the Europeans eliminated are living on vast land reserves assisted by the government and outnumber the original native population.

Is this to indicate that “animal rights” bears some relationship to radical politics? No way.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Indians are doing pretty good for themselves, they have taken capitalism and used their sovereign rights very well. They now own the worlds third largest casino, which is less than 20 miles from me.

Too bad I’m not in the same tribe they are in.

 

[Sair]

I’ve read Temple Grandin’s book & really enjoyed it.
We assume a lot as human beings.Animals ARE different.We just like to think they are like us and transfer our feelings & perceptions on to them.

It’s true that humans do assume a lot of things, including things about other animals.

What I wonder is why so many people insist that anything we assume about other animals having feelings is automatically wrong only because they’re not human. I realise that the idea of animal emotions goes against a great deal of social and religious teaching, and cuts to the heart of our cherished sense of our own importance, but, then, so did the idea that the earth was not at the centre of the universe (to say nothing of the vast and growing body of evidence for biological evolution…)

We can see that other animals aren’t human - but we can also see that they share many characteristics with humans, at least physically and in some of their social behaviours. Why assume that is where it ends, when we have a huge amount of observational and empirical data that points to the likelihood of animal sentience and intelligence? I for one, am not prepared to just assume that all nonhuman animal behaviour can be put down to mere instinctive motor reflex response, with no corresponding inner psychological experience.

Sure, everyone has their agenda. But what does one gain by allowing animals to have an emotional life, by considering them to be centres of experience? Clearly, if we suppose that animals are just automatons, we can go on treating them as mere conveniences for our use, and do so with a clear conscience. We lose that if we let ourselves be convinced that they have needs and interests in their own right.

My own perspective regarding the ethics of intensive farming is informed in part by the following thought experiment - it begins with the question, What are the consequences if I’m wrong?

In the first hypothetical scenario, let us suppose that all intensive farming of animals was abolished, and all animals raised for meat, dairy and egg production were kept on smaller organic farms, allowed to follow their natural behaviour patterns and given time to mature naturally before being slaughtered, or were allowed to produce their natural quantities of milk or eggs. What does this cost us, if the animal-rights advocates are wrong and the animals do not benefit from such practices? Certainly, it is likely that the cost of animal products for the consumer would rise. As a result, it may well be that animal products come to play a relatively small part in our diets, with resulting effects upon the health of the average consumer. Fast-food franchises such as McDonalds, Burger King and KFC would have to either change their product lines dramatically, or drastically downsize their operations. This would cost jobs in the short term. Animal production would possibly cease to be a corporate enterprise, and the environmental pollution caused by waste products from factory farming would no longer be an issue. I’m sure others could come up with further consequences.

For the second hypothetical scenario, let’s suppose that factory farming continues its present course, and perhaps expands to meet demand from a growing human population. What does this cost, if the animal-sentience sceptics are wrong? First and foremost, intolerable suffering caused to millions of sentient creatures at the hands of humans. The standard Western diet remains relatively high in animal protein and fat, with resulting effects on the health of the average consumer. Those who work in fast-food chains retain their jobs. Animal production remains a corporate enterprise, and the environmental pollution caused by waste products from factory farming remains at current levels or possibly increases. Again, this is probably not an exhaustive list of consequences, but you may notice that the previous list does not contain any mention of intolerable suffering.

By now it should be crystal clear where I stand, and why. Maintaining the status quo is not necessarily noble or virtuous, but neither is change only for the sake of change. I am speculating as to the probable consequences of a more humane approach to farming, but in the light of the comparison outlined above, I prefer to err on the side of compassion.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

It’s true that humans do assume a lot of things, including things about other animals.

What I wonder is why so many people insist that anything we assume about other animals having feelings is automatically wrong only because they’re not human. I realise that the idea of animal emotions goes against a great deal of social and religious teaching, and cuts to the heart of our cherished sense of our own importance, but, then, so did the idea that the earth was not at the centre of the universe.

We can see that other animals aren’t human - but we can also see that they share many characteristics with humans, at least physically and in some of their social behaviours. Why assume that is where it ends, when we have a huge amount of observational and empirical data that points to the likelihood of animal sentience and intelligence? I for one, am not prepared to just assume that all nonhuman animal behaviour can be put down to mere instinctive motor reflex response, with no corresponding inner psychological experience.

Sure, everyone has their agenda. But what does one gain by allowing animals to have an emotional life, by considering them to be centres of experience? Clearly, if we suppose that animals are just automatons, we can go on treating them as mere conveniences for our use, and do so with a clear conscience. We lose that if we let ourselves be convinced that they have needs and interests in their own right.

My own ethical perspective regarding the ethics of intensive farming is informed in part by the following thought experiment - it begins with the question, What are the consequences if I’m wrong?

In the first hypothetical scenario, let us suppose that all intensive farming of animals was abolished, and all animals raised for meat, dairy and egg production were kept on smaller organic farms, allowed to follow their natural behaviour patterns and given time to mature naturally before being slaughtered, or were allowed to produce their natural quantities of milk or eggs. What does this cost us, if the animal-rights advocates are wrong and the animals do not benefit from such practices? Certainly, it is likely that the cost of animal products for the consumer would rise. As a result, it may well be that animal products come to play a relatively small part in our diets, with resulting effects upon the health of the average consumer. Fast-food franchises such as McDonalds, Burger King and KFC would have to either change their product lines dramatically, or drastically downsize their operations. This would cost jobs in the short term. Animal production would possibly cease to be a corporate enterprise, and the environmental pollution caused by waste products from factory farming would no longer be an issue. I’m sure others could come up with further consequences.

For the second hypothetical scenario, let’s suppose that factory farming continues its present course, and perhaps expands to meet demand from a growing human population. What does this cost, if the animal-sentience sceptics are wrong? First and foremost, intolerable suffering caused to millions of sentient creatures at the hands of humans. The standard Western diet remains relatively high in animal protein and fat, with resulting effects on the health of the average consumer. Those who work in fast-food chains retain their jobs. Animal production remains a corporate enterprise, and the environmental pollution caused by waste products from factory farming remains at current levels or possibly increases. Again, this is probably not an exhaustive list of consequences, but you may notice that the previous list does not contain any mention of intolerable suffering.

By now it should be crystal clear where I stand, and why. Maintaining the status quo is not necessarily noble or virtuous, but neither is change only for the sake of change. I am speculating as to the probable consequences of a more humane approach to farming, but in the light of the comparison outlined above, I prefer to err on the side of compassion.

This is pretty funny.If animals were allowed to follow their natural behaviors we’d be hard pressed to rationalize castration & leash laws.Dogs would freely chase & eat cats & livestock.
Cows “naturally” only produce enough milk to feed their own calves.Chickens only would produce a nest or two of eggs a year.
The reason we have milk cows that produce enough milk to provide protein to human beings is because we have selectively bred dairy cows that way for hundreds of years.Ditto for the chicken & eggs.There’s nothing “natural” about it.
I keep reading these posts & wonder how many generations folks have lived off the farm?
I’m no huge fan of “factory-farms”, per say. But even smaller family run farms still follow basic rules of meat, egg & milk production to be profitable.

 

[Sair]

This is pretty funny.If animals were allowed to follow their natural behaviors we’d be hard pressed to rationalize castration & leash laws.Dogs would freely chase & eat cats & livestock.
Cows “naturally” only produce enough milk to feed their own calves.Chickens only would produce a nest or two of eggs a year.
The reason we have milk cows that produce enough milk to provide protein to human beings is because we have selectively bred dairy cows that way for hundreds of years.Ditto for the chicken & eggs.There’s nothing “natural” about it.
I keep reading these posts & wonder how many generations folks have lived off the farm?
I’m no huge fan of “factory-farms”, per say. But even smaller family run farms still follow basic rules of meat, egg & milk production to be profitable.

Certain natural behaviours are essential if animals are to be spared unnecessary stress. Domestic dogs, for example, require exercise and the mental stimulation of regular walks and playing. A dog that trusts its owner as a pack leader can be walked off lead in safety, where local laws allow this (my suburb is one such place). Successfully training a dog relies upon its natural sociability and instincts for pack-based behaviour and communication. In fact, the most successful training of any domestic animal is that which utilises its natural behaviours and responses. Natural behaviours can be mimicked in domesticated or captive environments, for the purpose of the animals’ welfare - this is the point of enrichment programs at zoos.

Sterilisation of domestic-bred dogs and cats is necessary to reduce the problem of overpopulation - there are already far more potential pet dogs and cats than there are people willing to care for them. There is also a safety issue involved - domestic pets are much less likely to roam and risk impoundment or accidental harm if their hormonal inducement to mate has been removed. Remember the point I have continually made about the necessity of actions. There is a moral distinction to be drawn between actions that are necessary for the animal’s wellbeing and actions that merely make them more convenient for us to use.

Consider also the degree of ‘processing’ to which factory farmed animals are subjected. Even cows that are specifically bred to produce a high milk yield are separated from their calves before the natural period of suckling has ceased; chickens that are bred to lay large numbers of eggs are starved to induce ‘shock’ laying, in order to push them even further beyond their standard capacity. Intensively farmed turkeys are not denied their ability to reproduce - but the fact that they have been bred to grow to unnatural proportions, in order to produce a maximum meat yield, means that their ‘mating’ can only be accomplished by human hands equipped with a syringe. Even the most basic natural behaviours such as foraging and grazing are restricted by confinement in intensive facilities. Animals raised in organic conditions lead much healthier lives, both physically and psychologically.

Even if you don’t care one way or another about the welfare of animals, you can’t simply dismiss arguments against intensive farming - in other words, systematic mistreatment of nonhuman animals for human convenience - by supposing that it is no different to other forms of human-animal interaction which actually value the animal’s welfare for its own sake. Ethically, there is a world of difference.

 

[vz71]

Animals raised in organic conditions lead much healthier lives, both physically and psychologically.

Psychologically!?

You’re kidding right?

Can you show me a psychological profile of a chicken from one of these farms and one from without so I can make the comparison for myself?

Is there special training involved in psychoanalyzing a chicken?

What would Freud say about all this?

I’ve seen cartoons in which the chicken lies on the couch and tells the psychiatrist all their problems, but I never considered that they may be serious.

I can’t stop laughing.

Particularly when I switch from chickens and start imagining a ‘doctor’ psychoanalyzing a cow.