Is purchasing factory farmed animal products ethical?
If you look online there are innumerable hidden camera videos of factory farmed animals being beaten and tortured for fun by farmers and slaughterhouse workers.
Is it ethical to purchase factory farmed animal products and fund this?
Is it ethical to purchase factory farmed animal products and fund this?
Comments (65)
As for funding these businesses, that may depend on people's pocket books. Buying non-factory farmed is VERY expensive. I buy eggs that are supposedly chicken friendly with some free range time, adequate space, and good feed. I pay nearly double what I would for basic eggs. Fortunately, I can afford it. Earlier in my life or if I had not gained a better career? I would not have been able to.
And regardless of my misgivings of undue suffering, I need to eat at the end of the day. Boycotting your food because you don't like how it was treated can be a hard thing if the alternative providers are twice as expensive.
No worse than typing on a computer whose components are made in exploitive third-world factories. You might recall that a while back, Foxconn employees were committing suicide. They solved the problem by installing suicide nets on the roof.
The global supply chain is something you don't want to look too closely at.
Animal advocates go off the deep end they equate artificial insemination with rape. I've observed cows being inseminated artificially and it isn't a painful process.
Pork, salmon, tilapia, chickens, turkeys, beef, are all intensively raised. Truly free-range chicken, lamb, beef, pork, or turkey is very hard to come by, and yes, it is much more expensive because there is no economy of scale in raising a couple hundred field-run turkeys or chickens. (fowl are usually raised in batches of thousands)
There is no escape from the costs of feeding billions of people. There are human and environmental costs associated with ALL agriculture, whether the end product fills the bellies of vegans, vegetarians, or carnivores.
Yes. It's ethical to eat beef raised on a grain diet in a feed lot farm. The quality of the beef won't be the same as when it is raised on pastureland and hay (over the winter months). Free range beef can cost $8-$10 a pound.
We are playing a game with each other. There are clear winners and losers. I won't compromise my position for the sake of ethical abstractions.
I certainly don't condone the torturing or beating of anyone. That includes animals, too. But I also don't condone calling something "unethical" by anyone who does not like that something happening.
"Ethical" has a ring of authority, moral authority. Whereas that is a myth. Say what you think: animals should not be beaten, and one should not buy products made of tortured animals. Fine, I can support that.
But why do you call it "unethical"? It boggles the mind. It's the buzzword of the late twentieth, early twenty first century. I hate this empty, illogical, yet emotionally forceful reference to any wrong-doing.
No. Still, I do. Guilty.
Is killing ethical?
Is being part of the constant demand for meat that ultimately involves killing of animals ethical?
Begging the question
Quoting Philosophim
The aforesaid beatings and torture would not happen if people didn't pay for the animals products.
Surely one should stop purchasing it, thus eliminating any suffering that was resulting from you doing so.
Quoting Outlander
When people are violent to humans they tend to be locked away for it. The cruelty towards animals tends to be because they literally have no voice, and the perpetrator almost always gets away with it.
The beatings and torture footage is from hidden cameras, planted by activists. As @Philosophim says, this footage pressures businesses in a positive direction.
Quoting fishfry
Reaching for oat-milk rather than cow-milk is hardly inconvenient, and well worth it to prevent the suffering of animals.
We can't be perfect, but we should try our best not to harm others.
Quoting Bitter Crank
None of the cruelty would occur if people were not buying the animal products.
Considering the amount of animal products consumed over one's lifetime, surely it would be better not to do so, and avoid all of the cruelty that comes as a consequence.
Quoting Garth
I'm not sure what you mean by compromising your position. Would you not compromise some taste pleasure, to save the animals pain and suffering?
Quoting god must be atheist
It was the softest term I could think of.
You indicate that "one should not buy products made of tortured animals". Would you go further and say that one should not buy factory farmed animal products?
Quoting petrichor
Well, you're the only person to respond in the affirmative. I appreciate your honesty.
Quoting TheMadFool
Considering that the animals only exist because of the demand, I don't think taking their existence away to satisfy the demand is unethical. The pain and suffering that comes with it is.
A couple of things:
1. Pain and suffering are the harbingers of death. Their sole purpose is to warn living things when death is on the horizon. You can't separate the two - death and pain/suffering - in a way that wouldn't raise a few eyebrows here and there. That would be like a gang of thieves deciding to sabotage the the burglar alarm first and then robbing a house, fully convinced that doing the former makes their action legal (read: moral)
2. Pain/suffering, in the "able" hands of humans, have morphed into something entirely different - goes by the name torture. We're so god-damned ingenious that we've manged to turn a friend (protective pain) into an enemy (torture pain) [This is a side note. You may ignore it if you wish]
It's becoming less ethical to do so ...
In a perfect world, you would not be an idealist but a realist. Not a perfectionist but a pragmatist. And though I admire much of your sentiment as can be inferred here, let us, if not for simple sake of pragmatic philosophical argument, think in other ways.
Say the entire world is but one village. The people have a modest amount to spend, more than enough for essentials, but not incredibly so. The law does what it can to ensure civility and a society without fear of rampant crime, but it is far from omniscient. Now. Say the price of essential foods increase by double. You have, to compare to modern standards, and perhaps these numbers are incorrect of course but perhaps they are correct:
At face value, these are not people who either have harmed or would harm anybody. A simple "appropriation" from someone much more successful, typically an unfathomably wealthy corporation who could take the loss. And, in fact, doing so alerts them of vulnerabilities in their systems, thus being a mutually beneficial action for all involved .. I suppose it could be argued. So. Let's say, by arbitrary example, an additional 1 in 11 out of those 1 in 11 are violent, who would kill or injure fellow citizens either in order to achieve said gains or prevent accountability (to escape and avoid jail time).
What do you think would happen to those numbers if the prices for essential goods doubled? Do you think they would increase by anything less than double?
1. Animals probably don’t have the same capacity to suffer as human beings do mainly because they can’t reflect on their suffering and they probably can’t be traumatized by their suffering the way that humans can be.
2. The suffering of an animal is probably just as important as the suffering of human assuming equal suffering. Outside the fact that most humans are probably capable of greater suffering than animals, there doesn’t seem to be any reason to think human suffering is more important to address.
3. Depending on your definition of the word “ethical”, it might be rational or good to refrain from being ethical. Some philosophers do not define ethical behavior as necessarily rational or good while others require that a behavior is rational or good in order to be ethical.
4. I think that it is more rational and more good for someone to focus much more on their own hedonic welfare above the hedonic welfare of others all things being equal. This is due to the fact that we are the ones that have to endure our own suffering and we get to enjoy our own pleasure. So, I think it’s probably more rational to be an egoist if you also happen to be a hedonist or subscribe to another experiential account of welfare.
5. If I happen to be wrong about egoism, then it still seems that factory farming is best eliminated through investment in technology that can produce cultured meat at a more inexpensive rate. Instead of spending extra money on free range meat, it is better to donate the extra money you would have spent to charities that are trying to produce inexpensive ways to make ethical meat.
6. On a final note, I think it is plausible to believe that even the suffering of disadvantaged people in poor countries is not much worse than the suffering of privileged people in wealthy countries. This is partly because of the role that hedonic adaptation plays on suffering. Hedonic adaptation is a phenomena where one adjusts to adversity after continuous exposure to that adversity and that adversity no longer causes as much suffering. If people adjust to adversity in this manner, then preventing the beginning of adversity is more important than preventing the continuation of adversity. Though, it could be argued that we can make poor people experience a period of greater happiness if we prevent the continuation of their adversity. This period of greater happiness will be somewhat valuable even if it is only temporary and will be followed by hedonic adaptation. But, this consideration wouldn’t apply to factory farm animals because a lack of factory farming would only cause these animals to not get born in the first place and other animals in more ethical farms will be born instead. Due to hedonic adaptation, these other animals might suffer almost just as much as the factory farm animals.
:clap: :up: :smile:
Quoting TheMadFool
The industry uses the term "humane slaughter" - but as you say, it's rare that death is free of pain/suffering. Maybe in the future science will allow for livestock that cannot suffer (for those that will refuse to eat "unnatural" lab grown meat). Many vegans would still think it wrong to kill them, but I wouldn't.
Quoting 180 Proof
You still waiting on your lab grown meat? :wink:
Quoting Outlander
I think you're getting your economics wrong. When demand falls, so do prices.
Quoting TheHedoMinimalist
The animals' confusion and panic can't be much better? A human can get mental strength from fighting back or contemplating escape.
This is probably a very complicated topic in itself. And while an interesting and worthwhile one, I'm sure you agree that animals don't need to suffer as much as humans would in their position for their suffering to be wrong.
Quoting TheHedoMinimalist
As you say "all things being equal". Which is not the case when comparing the animals' suffering (sometimes from beatings and torture) to the taste you get from their products.
Quoting TheHedoMinimalist
There is no guarantee this pittance would have any impact on innovation, where buying free range would undeniably give the animals a better quality of life. In any event, vegan food is even cheaper, then you would have even more money to donate to the ethical meat charities, and you've caused no cruelty in the process.
Many species of animal mate through a what is essentially rape -- the male chases the female down. I think of this because I just looked out my window at the pond behind my house and saw a group of mallard ducks chasing around a female. Suppose we were able to confirm through neural scans that the female really experiences this the way a human would -- terror, pain, etc. Should we then interfere with the natural process of mating of these animals for the sake of their welfare?
For instance we could begin a program of artificial insemination of female mallard ducks so that they don't have to be raped.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
If, suddenly for whatever reason, more and more people stopped buying factory farmed animals and instead turned to ethically farmed animals, with a rising demand for ethically farmed animals how long do you think those ethical farms would be able to keep up the demand for their product without putting pressure on their ethical practices? That seems to me a very work intensive way to produce the same amount of product the factory farms produced. How would they manage it?
I think you are referring to hope when you speak of mental strength but correct me if I’m wrong. It’s true that humans can have hope that one day they can escape their adversity and they may also hope for lots of good things to come once a bad period of their life is over. Nonetheless, I think animals have an advantage because they don’t seem to even need hope. They don’t experience the kind of despair that humans experience from their circumstances. When the animals are not experiencing physical pain or discomfort, they are probably not suffering. Humans in bad circumstances might suffer even when their adversity isn’t even physically hurting them.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
I agree that animal suffering is almost as bad as human suffering and their suffering should matter more than say the pleasure of humans. I would happily press a magic button that would prevent all humans from enjoying the taste of meat if such a button existed. This would probably lead to a reduction of suffering in the world and humans would probably have just as much pleasure as they would simply find other ways to enjoy themselves.
Though, fewer animals will be born to experience pleasure as well but I don’t think the pleasure justifies the suffering.
I’m not willing to abstain from eating factory farmed meat myself though. This is because it would lead to social stigma for me and it would interfere with my goals of saving money for my own pain management in the future. The problem is that people who don’t eat factory farmed meat can’t be “in the closet” about it unless they live alone. You have to actually reject some meals that your family has made you out of the kindness of their heart. You have to put up with your family constantly trying to convince you to eat their meat and you might have some really bad experiences during the holidays. I would actually experience more conflict with my family if I refused to eat factory farmed meat than if I told them I was gay. To put this in a thought experiment, suppose that it was the case that animals will suffer greatly for some strange reason if gay people don’t come out to their entire family. If you have a very religious and conservative family that also greatly supports you financially, then would it be wise to sacrifice your relationship with them by coming out to help sentient beings that you never even met. I happen to think that it would be better to keep your mouth shut. Unfortunately, keeping your mouth shut is rarely an option for those with dietary restrictions because unlike sex, eating is typically a communal activity.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
I would disagree that buying free range is guaranteed to give these animals better quality of life. The first point to consider is that quality of life is often determined by internal factors rather than external ones. A chicken living in a factory farm that is genetically predisposed to be happy is going to have a higher quality of life than a free range chicken that is genetically predisposed to be depressed. In addition, a single individual not buying factory farmed meat doesn’t guarantee that the production of such meat will be reduced because meat production is pretty insensitive to demand.
Then, there is also a possibility that the company that is selling the free range meat is lying about their farming practices or are not fully aware of policy violations in their own company. A company can illegally label their meat as free range even if it’s usually factory farmed. They probably will rarely get investigated and they may pass inspections because they might have some farms that are actually free range but other farms might be doing the same thing other farms are doing. In addition, employees frequently break the rules and policies of a particular company in the real world. They may abuse those free range animals for fun just like the factory farm employees might do and they might simply be too lazy to let the animals go outside because they want to play on their phone. The employers will often just turn a blind eye to all this because it saves them money to hire bad employees and not fire anyone as long as they are getting the product out. They also probably don’t want to hire expensive managers and HR people to deal with those employees. So, free range farming is probably not much better than factory farming in reality. It’s also worth noting that free range usually just means the animals get like 1 foot of space to walk around in and they not laying on top of the other animals covered in feces. Is that a huge improvement? I don’t think that it is.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
I’m pretty sure it’s more expensive as it usually doesn’t fill you up as much. It’s definitely more expensive to buy free range meat for those that don’t want to go the full vegan route. In addition, the stigma caused by being vegan can lead to less support from your family and less money to donate to charity. Even if your family accepts your veganism, then it’s still more expensive to have separate meals from your family if your family is not on board with your dietary restrictions. Plus, eating healthy is easier if you also don’t abstain from healthy meat products. Being healthy would lower your medical expenses and increase your lifespan and this would allow you to donate more money in the long run. Donating lots of money to charity also requires you to be a busy person and it’s hard to find the time to be a vegan if you are busy making money.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
It sounds to me like you’re really against the idea of killing for food. Which I understand. The only way around that is for us to produce synthetic good or become vegans. Which would mean an end to all leather products, which is possible.
Animals are an easy source of protein for us. It’s responsible for our evolutionary success. But maybe it’s time to end it. It seems to me that farming is just an unthinking continuation of hunting for food. Do we really need that source of protein? Is there really no other way? It all looks a bit savage and primitive to me.
Quoting Garth
I would be in favour of interfering with natural to reduce suffering. The scenario you have put has a lot of variables that need to be taken into consideration, as opposed to the obvious horrors of factory farming, which I cannot find justification for.
Quoting Brett
People pay extra for "ethically farmed animal products" to make up for the additional costs to the industry. However, to be honest, as @Bitter Crank and @TheMadFool have alluded to, "ethically farmed animals" suffer cruelty and abuse too. Veganism is the only way to eliminate suffering.
Quoting Brett
I remember watching a video by one Dr. Neal Barnard where he says that even if you got your daily calories from broccoli you would get enough protein. When you consider all of the saturated fat and cholesterol that would otherwise be clogging up your arteries, leading to the US' biggest killer - heart disease, veganism looks like a pretty safe bet.
It's surprising how conditioned we become: it didn't even occur to me that consuming animal products might cause suffering, until a few years ago.
Quoting munmin78
The animals can't speak for themselves, so those of us that have come to realise how much they suffer must do it for them.
Actually I was about to say the exact opposite.
Factory farming is inherently cruel and we don't need examples of specific workers intentionally abusing animals.
We're talking about places where animals may never see the light of day; never get to even turn around in the case of chickens and often pigs. Fattened up (extra cruelly in the case of foie gras), with bodies that have been bred to produce e.g. many times more eggs, and much larger eggs than they ever did in nature; they wouldn't survive long if we didn't kill them, who knows what it must feel like.
Oh and calves taken from their mother immediately so we can take the milk.
I've probably missed a bunch of things.
I don't want to anthropomorphize animals too much. But it does appear that these animals possess sufficient instinct and awareness to find all of this very unpleasant. Animals in zoos display anxiety and frustration in conditions far superior.
Sadly, it seems I am something of a hypocrite currently. I buy free range where the option exists but I still eat out at restaurants that likely use factory farmed meat. It's just something I have put to the back of my mind. Also I know "free range" can be defined somewhat generously in some cases to mean near-as-dammit factory farming.
I think what you said is true. Their capacity to suffer is why farming should be humane. Foie gras is an egregious example of cruelty. Also egregious is boxing in pigs. The methods used in high-volume chicken raising operations (as well as turkey) are appalling. And so on.
Corporate farming, which maximizes the intensity of resource utilization and output (space, feed, meat, eggs, milk) is the problem. We do not have to go back to the pre-WWII (or maybe pre-WWI) model of very small family farms of 160-200 acres, 100 pigs, a flock of very free-range birds, and 30 to 40 cows. Then pigs had optional access to outdoors, even in cold winter months. Ditto for chickens. Geese live outside all winter. There's not much for a cow to do outside when the ground is frozen, but they were let out while the barn was cleaned. Doing that would require at least 20% of the population to take up agriculture. That is not going to happen.
I would like to see the size of individual hog, fowl, beef, and dairy operations scaled back to a large extent. This would require more labor, more barns, more barnyards, and more pasture land. The total amount of feed would not change very much. Yes, the cost would rise, but the end product would be healthier and more humane.
Beef raised on pasture (In the summer) and hay (in the winter) without grain generally have fewer infections and harbor far fewer pathogenic bacteria. It takes longer to reach full weight, though. that's OK.
Mega-animal operations are unhealthy for humans and animals. A hog, for instance, produces about as much fecal matter per day as an adult human does. Very, very few hog farms dispose of hog manure in a safe manner. Imagine 100,000 people living in a small county with no sanitary sewers.
Quoting TheHedoMinimalist
:grimace: To be honest, I probably wouldn't have been able to refuse in that position either, especially if I wasn't financially independent.
In my view it all comes down to if your suffering will be worse than the animals'.
Quoting TheHedoMinimalist
I remember from reading positive psychology years ago, that extra wealth only becomes meaningless to happiness after a certain point. You need enough for a comfortable life, and so would the animals.
Quoting TheHedoMinimalist
A lifetime of not buying factory farmed meat will have an impact.
Quoting TheHedoMinimalist
Maybe not in the grand scheme of things, but it must feel quite a bit better for them to stretch their legs, and not get infections from the feces.
Quoting TheHedoMinimalist
Your grocery bill will drop dramatically if you substitute your animal products for potatoes, rice, bread, beans, pasta etc.
I like pasta dishes, which are super cheap, and filling because of the amount of water absorbed.
Quoting TheHedoMinimalist
Some meat might be healthier than others, but it all has saturated fat and cholesterol which contribute to heart disease - the biggest killer in the USA. A vegan diet is supposed to be healthier, and I don't see how it is any more time consuming.
I figure the meat I buy is factory raised.
I am an asshole if you ask any chicken, cow, or pig.
So are you for making me feel bad.
The problem with this is that it’s hard to quantify qualities such as suffering, even among ourselves, much less other animals. How can you be sure that factory farmed animals are indeed suffering at all?
According to the reading that I have done on positive psychology, relative poverty correlates with unhappiness but absolute poverty does not. This is why there are plenty of poor countries living on $5 a day whose people are happier on average than people in wealthy western countries living on $80 a day. Despite this, poor people in any given country are always less happy than rich people in that country. The thing that makes them unhappy is the presence of people much wealthier than them. Animals are never jealous of humans in the same way that humans can be jealous of other humans that they know personally that are wealthier than them. Thus, there’s no reason to think that factory farm animals are necessarily suffering more than the average human due to their discomfort.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
I would say that the healthiest vegan diet are healthier than the healthiest omnivore diets but it’s easier to have a diet that is healthier than the average western diet if you are an omnivore. This is because most people mostly eat unhealthy food most of the time regardless if they are vegan or omnivores. Vegans will typically indulge in potato chips, soda, white bread, pasta, and rice which are all pretty unhealthy. Meat eaters can avoid eating the above foods and reward themselves with a nice steak which is a really delicious food like the unhealthy foods that vegans often eat but it’s probably somewhat healthier than every one of the foods that I mentioned above that vegans eat. It’s kinda just something that I speculate but it seems plausible to me to think that being a healthy meat eater is easier for most people.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
That’s an interesting observation. So called animal ethics vary all over the world from culture to culture. I’ve seen the treatment of animals in India that I found appalling and yet no one blinked at it, as if they were oblivious to the suffering. But then they can turn a blind eye to the suffering of people right in front of them.
In most developing countries I think animals have a hard time. They’re there for work or transport or food. It’s an interesting study in disconnect how we treat animals as a food source, and being bred for food is a pretty shocking concept to me, and live with our pets who get the best care, the best food and pampered like children. We’re repelled by certain eating habits in parts of the world. Does our outrage make us more ethical. It’s a luxury of the west to sit around discussing the ethics of rearing animals to eat and meanwhile thousands of animals are killed so we can buy a Big Mac.
I mean really, what sort of ethics are we talking about? If you think it’s justified to kill lambs and calfs then what are your ethics? Even if we can’t get out of our meat consumption why must it be veal or lamb? Nor do I think “ eating the whole animal” and “respecting” the animal or personally killing the animal you eat cuts it. Until we evolve past this sort of cold view of life we’ll never amount to being more than savages.
If you believe it is ethical to torture animals as such behaviour gives you pleasure or perhaps it makes you feel pleasure to kick your dog when you have had a bad day at work then eating factory meat products is ethical (for you).
If however you think being cruel to animals is wrong then eating factory farmed animal products is ethically wrong. Any other answer is merely self deception so as to allay feelings of guilt so animal products can continue to be consumed.
(Off topic but related) I would take this further and say eating any meat or animal products is ethically wrong if you accept that climate change is real (and that you wish to prevent this change) considering the impact that an animal based diet has on climate.
The ease with which you can change your diet considering the amount of information available online in terms of nutrition means that anyone who thinks being cruel to animals is wrong and yet still eats meat or drinks milk or eats eggs (no matter what the source, factory or "free range") is merely choosing to satisfy their desires over their abhorrence of animal cruelty.
Ultimately, when humans are faced with a binary choice most will choose their own comfort over anothers. Even though many may shy away from personally killing countless male baby chickens in an industrial sized blender so they can enjoy an omelette they will accept that others will do so on their behalf as long as they don't have to hear too much about the way the eggs were "broken" so they could eat that omelette. In other words humans are the type of animal that likes eating sausages but are not the type that wants to know how the sausages were made or what goes into it.
Cars pollute the atmosphere and by driving one we contribute to the suffering of countless living beings in the same death-by-a-thousand-cuts manner as buying animal products.
I'm willing to consider the ethics of things like this, but I can almost guarantee you that the logical conclusions of these ideas are irreconcilable with modern life, and perhaps any kind of life.
So lets have this discussion, but without any attitudes of moral superiority.
It's not about being morally superior, it's about facing up to the truth of one's actions. If you wish to continue to eat animal products or drive a car or buy products made by sweat shop workers yet believe these things are wrong then you are doing something unethical. None of these things are necessary for humans to live. (Although even something that may be essential to survival could still be considered unethical).
If however you believe these actions are not in any way egregious/bad, then you are not being unethical if you perpetuate them.
Leading an ethical life is not a simple endeavour. The more intelligent and thoughtful you are the more complex living an ethical life will become. But I think it is important to constantly examine one's own actions and be as happy as possible about them if you intend to do so.
Sorry for the delay on the reply. Saying the purchase of animal products is the cause of animal abuse, is not a logical conclusion. People choose to purchase animal products, and workers can choose to do so humanely, or inhumanely.
Its like saying money causes wars, so lets give up money. Its not money. Its how we choose to obtain it and use it that determines whether it is good or evil. Life is about the breakdown and consumption of other life. This is something we cannot avoid. People need/want meat and other animal products. We can advocate that this is done ethically. But because some choose to do so unethically, we should not purchase any products, even from those who do so humanely? That is not a proper conclusion.
Quoting god must be atheist
:naughty:
Quoting Pinprick
I don't know for sure, but it's extremely likely considering that they have nerves and a brain, and they scream and cry, and show signs of trauma.
If you can stomach some of the footage, check it out. It's pretty convincing.
Quoting TheHedoMinimalist
No way. If you can stomach it, check out some of the footage.
Quoting Brett
I wonder how many Big Macs would be sold if people had to watch the process before buying it. As I say, it didn't even occur to me that I was contributing to cruelty.
Quoting infin8fish
I thought I would be getting some tougher arguments to deal with, but I am becoming more convinced that the cruelty involved in the process cannot be justified.
Quoting Tzeentch
As a lot of things would be different if people didn't use cars, I don't feel confident giving an answer either way. As @infin8fish indicates, although counter-intuitive, it may be that driving is wrong.
Quoting Tzeentch
As I sympathize with your views on antinatalism, you, @schopenhauer1 etc probably have the best chance of convincing me.
Quoting Philosophim
I appreciate you commenting.
I can't remember saying that the purchase of animal products is the cause of the animal abuse. As you have quoted, I did say:
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
I would go further and say, although not the sole cause of the animal abuse in question, it is a necessary part of what causes it.
Quoting Philosophim
As @infin8fish indicates, we don't need animal products. And as @Bitter Crank and @TheMadFool have alluded to, "humanely farmed animals" suffer cruelty and abuse too.
Your argument resembles those of antinatalists: "being born means forced suffering". No matter how you start, you end up with livestock suffering. There's no nuance in your argument.
Animals suffer--period. Wild or farmed, cow or human being, there is no escaping suffering. Abuse can be avoided but suffering can not.
There are solid arguments for vegetarian diets--the strongest one is the ecological argument. Farming animals produces more CO2 than farming crops only. You'd be on solid ground with that approach.
(within limits) suffering is compatible with a good life--for any animal, human or other. Suffering isn't compatible with some rose-tinted "perfect life", which is OK, because there is no such thing as a "perfect life" for any creature, anywhere.
If animal products were farmed in what most would consider an ethical way: large areas to roam, no cruelty etcetera then animal products on an "I can eat them every day of the week scale" no longer becomes economically viable. I was looking into this a little and it seems that if enough people were to turn to a plant based diet then the whole factory farming industry would collapse seeing as it is purely an economy of scale. The numbers that have to change aren't even that large. So at this moment in history eating animal products is, in practical terms, synonymous with factory farming and all the cruelty that process entails.
Whichever route you want to take be it animal cruelty, climate change or health, there is, in my opinion, a strong ethical argument for rejecting factory farming of animal products.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I think to be consistent in their principles an antinatalist would have to be in favour of veganism.
My view is that it is not always wrong to procreate, and that suffering can be justified if the life is overall good. Many if not most of the animals in question have an abominable life, full of unbearable suffering - and that's what I am seeking justification for.
We may be talking about two different things. Intentionally abusing animals is wrong, and is very often what is shown in documentaries, but I don’t think abuse is necessarily entailed by factory farming. In no way is it necessary for farmers to beat, starve, or otherwise harm animals. So, I’m not trying to argue that cattle don’t feel pain, or experience suffering when they are abused. I was thinking more along the lines of things like animals being kept in cramped spaces. But determining whether or not this affects their overall happiness seems like a grey area. We often keep pets in much smaller spaces than their natural habitats (I.e. goldfish, hamsters, rabbits, etc.), but there doesn’t seem to be much of a negative effect on their quality of life, at least as far as we can tell. The same would apply to zoos. If you could expand on what conditions specifically you’re against, then I could probably give you a better reply.
Coming to "...the negative connotations..." I mentioned, being opportunists we're basically lowlifes - nothing is beneath us - and that makes us as dangerous, as friend or foe. Frankly speaking, the ethical colloquy we, some at least, engage in might be just a smokescreen to conceal our true nature as opportunists behind a facade of affected goodness. Or, if one's a true blue optimist, we maybe onto something - could this be a case of an authentic change of heart?
At any rate, humans seem to be at the helm of the ship of destiny for our world. What we do has the power to make or break, what appears to be, the fragile earth. Funnily, it reminds me of Noah's ark. In that Bibilcal story, humans, Noah and his family, save the animals from the flood and, in my view, something doesn't add up if that herculean task was undertaken only to ensure a dependable food supply.
Quoting Pinprick
Yes, I am talking about the abuse.
My point is that the animals are only suffering the abuse because people are paying for them to be factory farmed. Shouldn't we stop doing this?
I don’t really see the connection. When I buy meat, that’s the only thing I’m paying for; food. My desire to eat meat in no way necessitates animal abuse. That occurs because some people are abusive, or controlling, or whatever particular issue the abuser has. That has nothing to do with me. I’m not asking farmers to abuse animals, or preferring meat from abused animals, so how am I culpable in any way? Why should I give up my craving for cheap meat because some farmer is sadistic?
Quoting Pinprick
The abuse is a consequence of us buying the products.
So you’re saying that people who enjoy, or feel compelled, or whatever, abusing animals would not do so if we didn’t buy meat? My inclination is that even if these factory farms were shut down, the abusers would simply find other animals, or perhaps even people, to abuse. Unless you’re proposing that somehow abusing animals is economically advantageous, I don’t see how owning a factory farm would cause someone to do so. If that’s the case, explain how that works and we can talk about it, because I have no idea whether that’s accurate or not.
It entirely depends on what one believes to be ethical. Therefore, I don't think there is any objective answer to this.
Furthermore, one's ethics are informed by one's upbringing and in my opinion more importantly one's socioeconomic status.
Suppose two people were to equally believe that eating factory farmed animals is unethical yet one is economically disadvantaged and chooses to eat it anyway since alternatively raised animals is too expensive, would we judge the latter for being unethical?
Quoting Pinprick
They are only doing it because the opportunity has provided itself to them. No way would they go out and find that amount of animals to abuse. And they know they would be locked up for doing it to humans.
Quoting LuckyR
So, you believe it is the intent that matters as opposed to the consequences?
Quoting avalon
Yes, either there is no objective answer, or it cannot be proven. The only way to argue against someone's ethics is to show that they're being inconsistent.
The OP was to see people's subjective view on if it is ethical. It is interesting, the amount of people that have ethical positions that allow for them to discount the likely consequences of their actions.
While not eating animal products is the cheapest of all, I understand your point. If eating factory farmed animal products was the cheapest, and it was all they could afford, that could well justify it. @TheHedoMinimalist gave another good justification. However, I cannot find justification for almost all of us in the west doing it.
That’s a really bad argument. This is like saying rapists only rape because they see attractive victims.
A good and considerate point. :up: One could go further and ask: should people struggling to survive even care what farmers are doing?
Factory farming ought to be banned imo, as should the import of factory farming produce. This would remove the two-tier system that allows unethical food to be arbitrarily cheap and ethical food arbitrarily expensive. Supermarkets have shown themselves amply adept at driving down prices for consumers (an ethical problem in itself).
In the meantime, if you can, eat ethically sourced food, otherwise you are choosing to give money to animal abusers. If you cannot afford it, there is no ethical decision to be made*.
It is more complicated than that. We eat far more meat than we need to. Many people who can't afford a week's worth of organic meat for their family a week don't need to.
A great way to eat is direct from ethical farms, many of whom deliver great quality food for free at supermarket prices.
Producers are in a much better position - to know how things are produced, and effect beneficial change. However, producers cannot do this in a competitive market without lawmakers establishing a regulatory floor, informed by science.
But as science is seen only as a tool, and not as an authoritative understanding of reality, lawmakers make regulatory decisions based primarily on national and economic interests. Without a common recognition of science, competition implies a race to the bottom - and regulation for ethical production becomes "an unnecessary burden on business."
It’s well know that human commodities exist in economics. We would have to first establish the “likeness” or level of “kinship” Between humans and animals. Do we both deserve the same rights? Freedom? - From exploitation, from Harm, from objectification. One must ask themselves if they feel all life forms are deserving of certain levels of respect. Considering we barely respect each other I don’t expect that we will soon respect our perhaps lesser informed/ knowledgeable counterparts - the animal kingdom in the same light as each other.
On one side we have the “one must eat” ie. survive in a competitive “eat or be eaten” sense. But on the other hand we have the question “can we do better than that?” Is the human capacity to empathise or relate to others important and should we apply it to what we consume.
We often grapple with a guilt- superiority dynamic. “We can” (we are potently capable of many things) but “should we” (ethics and moral implications of living). In my experience much like a gardener tends to their herbs and botanics or a Shepard to their sheep or livestock... their is an element of reciprocity that is essential to the health of both parties. Eating mistreated food is to the detriment of the consumer. But to not eat is to fail to thrive. It’s a balance. Perhaps one we are losing to material desire.
I would ask oneself “what can I eat and feel good about eating it while preserving my health?” And if animal products currently don’t meet that standard then there is your answer
Absolutely. Changing to an electric car after the Exxon Valdiz catastrophe is logical, buying gas from Shell and boycotting ExxonMobil is not.
Quoting Pinprick
Rapists can only rape when opportunities for doing so arise. When we're talking about factory farming, it is our actions that creates fresh opportunities for the animal abuse.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Not eating animal products is the cheapest, but I take your point.
Quoting counterpunch
My question was more whether the action of buying factory farmed animal products was ethical as opposed to the intent of the person purchasing it.
Quoting Benj96
Yes, what's the trait that justifies us treating non-human animals this way, but not human beings?
Is it intelligence? If so, would it be okay to slaughter severely mentally handicapped people if we liked the way they taste?
Quoting LuckyR
We know the factory farming industry causes tremendous pain and suffering. To clarify, your view is that it's not wrong for us to fund this, as long as we or the business owner don't intend for the suffering?
I know, I read it. I think it's the wrong question, because, as I explained, the consumer cannot be expected to bear the cognitive burden of knowing how everything they consume is produced. That's what's wrong with the current approach to sustainability - mainly coming from the left. It assumes consumer sovereignty is the answer to sustainability - and it's really not. It should be about ethical and sustainable production - not expecting the consumer to stand in the supermarket reading between the lines of the fine print on the back of a horsemeat lasagne!
There is surely some ethical reason to mitigate your impact though, right? For instance, you might eat meat, but not eat it for every meal the way many Americans do. If people just ate meat 2-3 meals a week instead of up to 21, the nation as a whole could be healthier, drastically reduce carbon output, and return millions of acres of land to prarie (which also absorbs way more water and would reduce flooding, while the reduction in pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer would improve water quality). From a policy perspective, externalities should be priced into the cost of meat. Instead we subsidize meat and dairy over production at a high rate.
Take out subsidies and add in a carbon and water pollution tax and the price of ground beef goes from $4 to $12, and people will eat less beef. You could also use the revenues to support social welfare programs.
Cars are a great example. Yes, America's low population density means many people need cars. Do 69% of people need to drive trucks or SUVs? Most never go off road and rarely ever haul anything. The truck for American males is like a $45,000 handbag. You gotta show you're rugged with your truck and $5,000 SCAR-H and body armor, but you can't run a mile, do a single pull up, or tie the knots to set up a tarp. Gas is also heavily subsidized in that gas taxes are well below the cost to maintain roads, so that people who make a free choice to drive heavier vehicles don't pay for the extra wear and tear. The US military also has to engage in expensive adventurism and distasteful alliances to keep gas cheap, because people can't afford to drive their trucks if gas prices go up (or afford the payments on said truck, because again, for most owners it's a $40k handbag they can't really afford).
IT is the same way. You can at least recycle your old phones and computers instead of throwing them in the trash.
Not being able to eat them because of your finances is discriminatory. Not eating them irrespective of your finances, sure, that's your choice. No beef with vegetarians, if you'll pardon the pun.
Perhaps, but what I tried to point out is the following:
To stop eating meat is basically foregoing a luxury or convenience because it came about through what one deems unethical practices.
But what of many other, similar luxuries and conveniences in our lives; superfluous, but in some direct or indirect way harmful to others (like driving cars).
If one allows themselves to cherry pick what luxuries one sacrifices and what luxuries one chooses to keep, it quickly begs the question "Why?"
And if one allows themselves to cherry pick, then shouldn't others be allowed to cherry pick as well?
This is why I noted that this should be discussed without attitudes of moral superiority; if anything it should show how morally imperfect we are.
Simple. If you have two harmful luxuries and you 'cherry pick' one of them to eliminate, that's halved the amount of harm you're causing, which is a good thing. You appear to be raising the property of consistency above the property of causing harm. Not sure why you would want to do that. Is a person who consistently violent towards everyone a better person that one who is occasionally violent but restrains themselves in certain circumstances?
I do nothing of the sort.
I see. So why does the question "why?" get raised with regards to such cherry-picking, as you stated in the quote I cited? Surely the answer is abundantly clear - it reduces harm. What remains to be explained?
And what does...
Quoting Tzeentch
...mean?
Isn't that obvious? Why would I allow myself luxuries when I know that they cause harm? Would this make sense from an ethical standpoint? Doesn't a luxury imply that I do not need it? And what does this mean for almost everything I own? These should be quite humbling questions, which should help you make sense of that quote.
Quoting Tzeentch
Not really, no. The context was the moral superiority of those cherry-picking. If we cherry-pick one of our luxuries for exclusion, that's an improvement on not having done so, so there doesn't seem to be a question of dubious moral superiority to answer. Obviously, someone relinquishing all luxuries has some superiority over someone relinquishing only some, but your "if one allows themselves to cherry pick, then shouldn't others be allowed to cherry pick as well?" made it clear we weren't talking about comparing quantities of luxuries sacrificed, but rather types. In such a case, if the amount of harm done is acting as a measure of worth, then the amount of harm reduced by each choice can act similarly as a measure, no?
So I'm still not seeing the link to attitudes of moral superiority. A person sacrificing a luxury which causes significant harm is (by the definition used here) morally superior to someone sacrificing a luxury of much lesser impact. Maybe I've just not been privy to the conversations you're referring to, but most veganism/organic/whatever arguments seem to at least attempt to quantify the harm done, not simply declare that the value is non-zero.
I suppose it's the difference between deontological and pragmatic ethics. Yes, any consumption of factory farm meat or use of automobiles can be seen as unethical. Cars are a more interesting topic. There is nothing ethically wrong with a single person, or even a few hundred thousand driving cars, provided the production isn't exploitive. However, when the number of vehicles climbs into the hundreds of millions, you end up with major externalities in terms of global warming, ocean acidification, etc.
In terms of the effects on people's live and human cost of outright doing away with vehicles, you end up with a moral quandary trying to do away with cars too. Smaller more fuel efficient vehicles seems like an obvious way to mitigate the economic and social impact of removing access to transportation, while also drastically reducing emissions.
Again, I like the market idea. Make gas reflect the true cost of global warming and military intervention to stabilize prices. If gas is allowed to slowly rise to $10 a gallon, you'll see most households switch to more efficient vehicles. Truck and SUV production did fall dramatically in the mid-2000s. Now we're back at 69%.