Animal usage in agriculture has always been a never ending ethical debate. From lab animals to animals used for food, many people have differing views on how agriculturalists should handle animals. Some of these views are products of informed, scientific evidence while others are the product of blogs and various judgements based on varying opinions. This essay will evaluate animal agriculture as an ethical issue, attempt to explain different perspectives of this issue, explain why this issue is a never-ending battle, and encourage ways to come to a conclusion that may benefit all sides of the ethical argument. Before we can begin to reach a conclusion on how to solve the ethical dilemma of using animals in agriculture, we first need to understand …show more content…
From a Right’s theory perspective, animal rights activists argue that “everything that occurs in animal agriculture harms animals or their interests,” (CAST, 2005, p. 5). Animal rights groups believe that animal agriculture should cease to exist since there is no way to avoid harming animals in the process. Another way to look at this ethical dilemma, is to consider the utilitarian theory. The utilitarian theory perspective would demand that “we attempt to achieve a balance of humans’ and animals’ benefits and harms,” (CAST, 2005, p. 5). By attempting to find balance in a way that benefits both humans and animals, it could help us work towards a solution that benefits all. The benefits of agriculture are increased food production, technological development, employment opportunities, and economic benefits. The possible harms of animal agriculture involve animals in cases of animal abuse, methods used in raising of farm animals, and lab animals subject to experimentation. There could also be harms to society in regards to pollution that affects the earth. Although these are only a few of the benefits and harms of using animals in agriculture, the utilitarian theory would encourage us to list out all potential benefits and harms to determine the best overall …show more content…
57). When Haidt says this, he means that the best way to win someone over is to avoid direct confrontation with them because it will not help you reach them emotionally and in most cases, it could even cause them to become more defensive. If a person wants to convince someone to agree with them on the ethical implications of using animals in agriculture, then he/she must smile, listen, and attempt to understand that persons point of view. That person must approach their own opinion in a way that does not directly contradict the other person’s opinion. People are so easily triggered in a combat mode that it blinds them from seeing different perspectives and limits a person to only being a cheerleader instead of an informed advocate. Faivre (2016) stated that “being an advocate, or cheerleader, for agriculture tends to mean designating teams and picking sides instead of leaving room for more than one way of farming and open, honest conversation.” Faivre and Haidt both believed that empathy and open-mindedness was the key to reaching people’s elephants and allowing them to make more informed decisions. If we want to come to an educated agreement on the ethical implications of animal use in agriculture, then we need to follow in Faivres’ footsteps and be a source of high quality, trustworthy information. We need to be willing to adapt and change and have a conversation about
Factory farming is often a sore spot for American and other first world consciences. Even those that are ethically comfortable with consumption of animal products are often discomfited by the large-scale maltreatment of living creatures that is present in contemporary agribusiness. Writings that are similar to Peter Singer's “Down on the Factory Farm”, which depicts the multitude of unnatural horrors and abuses that billions of farm animals undergo before they are ultimately slaughtered for our use, make up the majority of the commentary on the subject. There seem to be few writers with the audacity to dispute the popular outcry that there is something morally reprehensible in our systematic exploitation of other species. Yet, as Stanley Curtis shows in “The Case for Intensive Farming of Food Animals”, a less emotionally charged examination is likely to be necessary if we have any aspirations of revising the current model into one that is not only more humane, but also sustainable for the environment and for the growing human population. Though our sympathies are immediately swayed by Singer's work, we must remain cognisant that, as Singer himself said, “We can't take our feelings as moral data, immune from rational criticism” (The Lives of Animals 89). Though Curtis's work seems at times overly cold in its utilitarian views, it provides an undoubtedly useful contrast to the call-to-arms of Singer's work. Evaluating them in tandem is likely the best approach to deriving a model that placates our moral dissatisfaction while meeting the requirements set forth by reality.
Pollan believes that American factory farms are places with technological sophistication, where animals are machines incapable of feeling pain (368). In other words, factory farms use plentiful of technology where they do not pay attention to animals feelings. For example, beef cattle who live outdoors are standing in their own waste, and factory farmers do not considered that wrong and unsanitary. Hurst alleges that “turkeys do walk around in their own waste, although they don’t seemed to mind”(5). This shows that factory farmers think that animals really don’t have feelings and really don’t care. Pollan also disagrees with industrial farming because he states that, “American industrial farms itself is redefined- as a protein production- and with it suffering” (369). He affirms this because industrial farming cages their animals. Interestingly, both authors believe that animals still die and suffer no matter what circumstances an animal is living. Pollan believes animals should be treated with respect and not be caged. On the other hand, Hurst asserts that “farmers do not cage their hogs because sadism, but because being crushed by your mother really is an awful way to go, as is being eaten by your mother”(6). So Hurst say that he cages animals to protect them. Also both authors believe that there needs to be ways to enrich the soil, so the farms can have bigger harvest, healthy plants, and keep cost down. However, Pollan believes that farmer should use compost. He states that “the finish compost will go to feed the grass;the grass, the cattle; the cattle , the chickens; and eventually all of the animals will feed us” (370). So he thinks compost is good for the farms. Hurst on the other hand, think manure and commercial fertilizer is good for the farms. Hurst spread poultry litter on pasture and this made cattle production possible in areas
The essay “Ill-gotten Gains” first appeared in a book called ‘Health Care Ethics’ and was written by Tom Regan, a renowned philosopher, author and animal rights advocate. The essay appeared again in Tom Regan’s best known book called ‘The Case for Animal Rights’ which states Regan’s beliefs regarding animal rights and provides a sound argument as to why animals should not be exploited for our own gain. Tom Regan believes all animal use that benefits humans is morally unacceptable, including for food, entertainment, labour, experiments and research. “Ill-gotten Gains” argues that to be on the right moral path we need to view all individuals with inherent value as a ‘subject of a life’. Regan argues that any practice in which a ‘subject of life’ is used as a resource is immoral, not because of emotion, but because of reason.
Throughout the last century the concern of animals being treated as just a product has become a growing argument. Some believe that animals are equal to the human and should be treated with the same respect. There are many though that laugh at that thought, and continue to put the perfectly roasted turkey on the table each year. Gary Steiner is the author of the article “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable”, that was published in the New York Times right before Thanksgiving in 2009. He believes the use of animals as a benefit to human beings is inhumane and murderous. Gary Steiner’s argument for these animal’s rights is very compelling and convincing to a great extent.
In the article, “On Eating Animals,” Namit Arora explains that for much of our settled history--and even today in parts of the world--most people lived in close proximity to farm animals. Animals fertilized our crops, shared our labors, and nourished our bodies, helping us enlarge our settled communities.” (Arora). Animals were once like a family member. People would tend to their animal’s needs and make sure they were well taken care of just like any other member of the family. We would give them names, show them at county fairs and make sure their living conditions were comfortable and as sanitary as possible. Further on in “on Eating Animals,” Arora explains that “In the twentieth century, the inexorable logic of modern economics and the assembly line turned farm animals into number-tagged bodies to be fattened, disinfected, and processed as quickly and cheaply as possible.” (Arora) This led to the factory farming of animal products that we still use today. The ASPCA defines factory farming as, “…a large, industrial operation that raises large numbers of animals for food.” They co...
Rollin, Bernard. “Animals in Agriculture and Factory Farming.” Encyclopedia of Bioethics. Ed. Stephen G. Post. 5 vols. New York: Gale. 2004.
After reading the Ethics of What We Eat, one may conclude that there are two normative principles that can be applied when ruling the ethics behind our food (Utilitarianism and Kantianism). Utilitarianism, which focuses on the consequences of actions, emphasizes that actions are right in proportion when they promote happiness and wrong as they tend to reverse it. On the contrary, Kantianism does not concern itself with the consequences in considering what’s right or wrong. Instead, what’s right is not the maximization of happiness, but the morality of the actions that lead to such happiness. Because of these opposite ideologies, using animals for food, its environmental impact, and its impact on global poverty can be controversial.
The long-term aim is to develop an approach to ethics that will help resolve contemporary issues regarding animals and the environment. In their classical formulations and as recently revised by animal and environmental ethicists, mainstream Kantian, utilitarian, and virtue theories have failed adequately to include either animals or the environment, or both. The result has been theoretical fragmentation and intractability, which in turn have contributed, at the practical level, to both public and private indecision, disagreement, and conflict. Immensely important are the practical issues; for instance, at the public level: the biologically unacceptable and perhaps cataclysmic current rate of species extinctions, the development or preservation of the few remaining wilderness areas, the global limitations on the sustainable distribution of the current standard of living in the developed nations, and the nonsustainability and abusiveness of today's technologically intense crop and animal farming. For individuals in their private lives, the choices include, for example: what foods to eat, what clothing to wear, modes of transportation, labor-intensive work and housing, controlling reproduction, and the distribution of basic and luxury goods. What is needed is an ethical approach that will peacefully resolve these and other quandaries, either by producing consensus or by explaining the rational and moral basis for the continuing disagreement.
"Preface to 'Is Factory Farming an Ethical Way to Treat Animals?'." Factory Farming. Debra A.
There are many debates around the world about the topic of animal abuse. Animal abuse in the food industry has become a major problem due to the cruel treatment of animals. Most of the world's population might think that animal cruelty is only found in homes and on the street, but they forget about the other forms of animal abuse that affect the food industry. Large contributors to animal abuse are due to fishing methods, animal testing, and slaughterhouses. "Animals have always been a major part of our society in history and they have played huge roles in agriculture" (ASPCA). Factory farming is a system of confining chickens, pigs, and cattle under strictly controlled conditions. Slaughterhouses are places where animals are killed
As a human, we possess certain rights that protect us in society, however the animals we raise for food live under a much more complicated system that constantly changes. Americans have recently begun to protest animal treatment, especially in the meat industry. Many animal rights groups claim that animal farming is an inhuman practice that violates the rights of all living creatures. Farmers believe that animal right shouldn't change as any changes could cost them millions in new technology to safely care for the animals. The American farming industry poses several moral issues about animal rights which possess no easy solution, however new alternatives appear to have answers for this growing dilemma.
In order to feed the growing population of the world, nontraditional farming and ranching techniques have been used to increase food production. For example, animal mass harvesting systems and feed lots used for chickens and cows allow for faster growing and harvesting of the animal. But are these practices moral? In Paul Taylor’s “The Ethics of Respect for Nature”, he illustrates how this treatment of animals is immoral, because of his biocentric view. Bonnie Steinbock would disagree with Taylor due to her speciesic view, illustrated in her article “Speciesism and the Idea of Equality”, that places human needs over animal needs in this case.
When these agricultural resources are given to the animals involved in meat production, these resources are lost. Besides the loss of land, the process of animal production is contributing to pollution and other greenhouse gases that are doing irreplaceable damage to the environment and contribute to untold negative health
It has long been debated as to whether it is ethical to use animals for experimentation. When considering whether animal research is ethically acceptable or not two main concerns must be raised. The first issue is whether it is absolutely necessary to use animals in order to acquire information that may contribute to the improvement of people’s health and well-being. The second issue is whether the use of animals is defendable on a moral ground.
Humans place themselves at the top of the sociological tier, close to what we as individuals call our pets who have a sentimental value in our lives. Resource animal’s on the other hand have a contributory value within our lives: they provide us with meat and other important resources. In order to determine the boundaries between how we treat animals as pets and others simply as resources, utilitarians see these “resource animals” as tools. They contemplate the welfare significances of animals as well as the probable welfares for human-beings. Whereas deontologists see actions taken towards these “resources animals” as obligations regardless of whom or what they harm in the process. The objection to these theories are, whose welfare are we