Industrial Farming is Not Cruel to Animals

Articles

Abstract

Critics of industrial animal agriculture (also known as “factory” farming) have argued that its practices are cruel, inhumane, or otherwise degrading to animals. These arguments sometimes form the basis of a larger case for the complete abolition of animal agriculture, while others argue for more modest welfare-based reforms that allow for certain types of industrial farming. This paper defends industrial farming against the charge of cruelty. As upsetting as certain practices may seem, I argue that they need not be construed as cruel or inhumane. Any link between industrial farming and cruelty or inhumanity is contingent on certain cultural, behavioral, and psychological facts that are person-dependent. For many people working in animal agriculture, these facts do not obtain. To be sure, industrial animal agriculture has real moral hazards that must be carefully avoided, but all that this shows is that working with animals is not for everyone.

Keywords

Industrial farming Factory farming Animal rights Sentience Vegetarianism Anthropocentrism 

References

  1. Adler, M. (1967). The difference of man and the difference it makes. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, M. (1990). Intellect: Mind over matter. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beckwith, F. (2007). Defending life: A moral and legal case against abortion choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biggar, N. (2014). In defence of war. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bruers, S. (2015a). The core argument for veganism. Philosophia, 43(2), 271–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruers, S. (2015b). In defense of eating vegan. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(4), 705–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carruthers, P. (1992). The animals issue: Moral theory in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carruthers, P. (2011). Animal mentality: Its character, extent, and moral significance. In R. G. Frey & T. Beauchamp (Eds.), The oxford handbook of animal ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, C. (2001). In defense of the use of animals. In C. Cohen & T. Regan (Eds.), The animal rights debate (pp. 3–123). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  11. Craig, W. L. (2012). Navigating Sam Harris’ the moral landscape. Enrichment, 20(2).Google Scholar
  12. DeGrazia, D. (2008). Moral status as a matter of degree? The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 46(2), 181–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeGrazia, D. (2009). Moral vegetarianism from a very broad basis. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 6(2), 143–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DiSilvestro, R. (2010). Human capacities and moral status. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Engel, M. (2000). The immorality of eating meat. In L. Pojman (Ed.), The moral life (pp. 856–890). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Engel, M. (2001). The mere considerability of animals. Acta Analytica, 16, 89–107.Google Scholar
  17. Erdős, L. (2015). Veganism versus meat-eating, and the myth of “root capacity”: A response to Hsiao. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(6), 1139–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feser, E. (2008). The last superstition: A refutation of the new atheism. South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press.Google Scholar
  19. George, M. (2003). Thomas aquinas meets nim chimpsky: On the debate about human nature and the nature of other animals. The Aquinas Review, 10, 1–50.Google Scholar
  20. George, R., & Tollefsen, C. (2008). Embryo: A defense of human life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  21. Harris, J. R., & Galvin, R. (2012). ‘Pass the cocoamone, please’: Causal impotence, opportunistic vegetarianism and act-utilitarianism. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 15(3), 368–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hooley, D., & Nobis, N. (2015). A moral argument for veganism. In A. Chignell, M. Halteman, & T. Cuneo (Eds.), Philosophy comes to dinner: Arguments on the ethics of eating. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Hsiao, T. (2015a). In defense of eating meat. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(2), 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hsiao, T. (2015b). A carnivorous rejoinder to bruers and erdös. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(6), 1127–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaczor, C. (2011). The ethics of abortion: Women’s rights, human life, and the question of justice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Kuhse, H. (1985). Interests. Journal of Medical Ethics, 11(3), 146–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee, P. (2009). Human nature and moral goodness. In M. Cherry (Ed.), The normativity of the natural: Human goods, human virtues, and human flourishing (pp. 45–54). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, P. (2015). Moral status and the margins of human life. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 60(1), 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee, P., & George, R. (2008). Body-self dualism in contemporary ethics and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lonergan, B. (1957). Insight: A study of human understanding. London: Longman’s, Green, & Co.Google Scholar
  31. Machan, T. R. (2004). Putting humans first: Why we are nature’s favorite. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  32. Moreland, J. P., & Rae, S. B. (2000). Body and soul: Human nature and the crisis in ethics. InterVarsity Academic: Downer’s Grove.Google Scholar
  33. Nobis, N. (2008). Reasonable humans and animals: An argument for vegetarianism. Between The Species. doi:10.15368/bts.2008v13n8.4.
  34. Norcross, A. (2004). Puppies, pigs, and people: Eating meat and marginal cases. Philosophical Perspectives, 18(1), 229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Brien, M., & Koons, R. (2011). Who’s afraid of metaphysics? The Public Discourse. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/06/3356/.
  36. Oderberg, D. S. (2000a). Moral theory: A non-consequentialist approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Oderberg, D. S. (2000b). Applied ethics: A non-consequentialist approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  38. Oderberg, D. S. (2008a). Teleology: Inorganic and organic. In A. M. Gonzalez (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on natural law (pp. 259–279). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  39. Oderberg, D. S. (2008b). Real essentialism. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Phillips, R. (2014). Understanding the link between violence to animals and people: A guidebook for criminal justice professionals. National District Attorneys Association. http://aspcapro.org/sites/default/files/Understanding%20the%20Link%20between%20Violence%20to%20Animals%20and%20People.pdf.
  41. Piazza, J., et al. (2015). Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite, 91, 114–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Puryear, S. (2016). Sentience, rationality, and moral status: A further reply to Hsiao. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 29(4), 697–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rachels, J. (1999). Created from animals: The moral implications of darwinism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Rachels, J. (2004). The basic argument for vegetarianism. In S. Sapontzis (Ed.), Food for thought: The debate over eating meat (pp. 70–80). Amherst: Prometheus.Google Scholar
  45. Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  46. Reichmann, J. (1985). The philosophy of the human person. Chicago: Loyola University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Reichmann, J. (2000). Evolution, animal ‘rights’, and the environment. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
  48. Schwitzgebel, E., & Rust, J. (2013). The moral behavior of ethics professors: Relationships among self-reported behavior, expressed normative attitude, and directly observed behavior. Philosophical Psychology, 27(3), 293–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scruton, R. (2000). Animal rights and wrongs. London: Metro and Demos.Google Scholar
  50. Singer, P. (2011). Animal liberation (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Taylor, P. (1981). The ethics of respect for nature. Environmental Ethics, 3(3), 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tollefsen, C. (2011). Fetal interests, fetal persons, and human goods. In S. Napier (Ed.), Persons, moral worth, and embryos (pp. 163–184). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wallace, W. (1996). The modeling of nature: The philosophy of science and the philosophy of nature in synthesis. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America of Press.Google Scholar
  54. Weir, J. (1988). Vegetarianism and the argument from unnecessary pain. Southwest Philosophical Studies, 10(3), 92–100.Google Scholar
  55. Weir, J. (1991). Unnecessary pain, nutrition, and vegetarianism. Between the Species, 7(1), 13–26.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Arts, Humanities, and Social SciencesFlorida SouthWestern State CollegeFort MyersUSA

Personalised recommendations