A Solution to Factory Farming Ethics

The suffering of animals who are raised and slaughtered for food is not justified, since it is not necessary for us to eat animals to get the nutrition we need. We treat animals cruelly simply just to serve our trivial enjoyment of taste. In addition, Rachels asserts that it is impossible to treat the animals decently yet still produce a sufficient amount of meat. According to him, the humane production of millions of pounds of meat would be so costly that it would force most of us to become vegetarians, as most of us would not have the resources to be able to afford much meat. In response to the question that: “if meat could be produced humanely, without mistreating the animals prior to eating them painlessly, would there be anything wrong with it?” (Rachels 372), he argues that human being the subjects of biographical and not merely biological lives is what qualifies humans for rights; however, the animals with which we are most familiar are subjects of biographical lives and if we have the right to life on the basis of having a life, then those animals have rights to life as well. Thus, even if the farming practices are completely humane, killing the animals is still immoral. There are millions of vegetarians already, there is already less cruelty than there would be otherwise, so little effect does not equate none. He uses the analogy of slavery to

In contrast, in the story of Genesis God gave man dominion over all the creatures of the Earth. (Genesis 1:28) The man to this day, hunts animals of all kinds and disrespects nature, with clear-cutting of forestry and pollution.

The statement by Paul McCartney rings true, “If slaughterhouses had glass walls everyone would be a vegetarian.” Animal rights is a concept which people hardly ever consider in a serious light. Being born as a human being, having a superior mental capacity and sense of times makes people think that they can rule this world and use other living beings as they see fit. This mentality leads to people say things like “animals are born to eaten” or how Aristotle claimed “all of the nature exist specifically for the sake of men” and “that animal are merely instruments for humankind.” (Pg. 495). This way of thinking often leads to overconsumption of animals, cruelty to animals and loss of species.

“I think using animals for food is an ethical thing to do, but we 've got to do it right. We 've got to give those animals a decent life and we 've got to give them a painless death. We owe the animal respect.” ― Temple Grandin. Temple Grandin brings up a brilliant point, it’s okay to eat meat but it’s not okay to treat these animals throughout their life as just something that you will be killing. They have the right to live healthily and in a property environment. Throughout the novel The Chain by Ted Genoways it brings a light to all the dangerous conditions animals and workers go through and what actually goes into the meat you buy in stores. Although low prices on farm produced meat sound enticing, the abused caused to animals and the dangerous working conditions for workers cause dangerously poor sanitation, and can affect many Americans health.

The matters pertaining the animal rights and their suffering for the sake of harvesting their flesh have been an issue with a variety of perspectives. Puppies, Pigs and People, a piece by Alastair Norcross, bring to question the treatment towards livestock and what is immoral about the process. The argument proclaims that since we (humans) do not require meat as part of our diet then the exploit of raising animals for consumption (humanly or not) is immoral. On a counter side of the argument, a philosopher, Carl Cohen, states in his work that animals possess no moral rights thus we have the option to eat them despite if it is immoral or not. In the case of who I believe offers the most optimum solution, I believe Cohen is the most accurate in his summation of animal’s roles in our world. I will argue that people have no obligation to abstain from eating animals, but morally speaking animals should be kept in humane living conditions in order for it to meet our obligations towards these creatures.

Throughout the years of society our views on factory farming have drastically changed. Many people used to think that our biggest problem with factory farming was how we would mutilate and torture innocent animals. Animals would be put in a situation where they would be force fed, and sometimes beaten by humans, the unthinkable has already happened and now we have to think about the long term effects of Factory Farming. However, as significant as the ethical argument is, people are also ignoring the fact of it being so bad for your body. Cancer, H1N1, and  Avian Flu are the main health problems due to Factory Farming. On top of that we have 3 million people getting diagnosed with obesity from all the antibiotics there putting in from the the meat. The amount of people it is affecting is outstanding, not only for the meat but the factory farming also affecting our water. The thing that we thought that was the safest for our bodies in the one thing we have to worry about most, for our generation to the next this is a issue we can’t ignore.

“Man is the only creature that consumes without producing. He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits. Yet he is lord of all the animals. He sets them to work, he gives back to them the bare minimum that will prevent them from starving, and the rest he keeps for himself.” (29)

Research shows that two of the major human-caused climate change attributers are factory farms and burning of fossil fuels. Factory farms are a big controversy for climate change because of the byproducts created in everyday production. My uncles who run a small to medium scale farm operation believe that farming doesn't have a very big impact on global climate change. Scientists and environmentalists believe that animals crammed together on large farms produce too much manure and methane, and that's causing a negative effect on the climate. My uncles didn't believe this because most farmers take good care of their farms and use manure in a safe and secure manner to help fertilize their crops from the natural cycles from animals. Fossil fuels

Factory farming is the process of “employing abusive practices that maximize agribusiness profits at the expense of the environment, our communities, animal welfare, and even our health” (Factory Farming). These methods are used across the United States and have major impacts on not only those consuming the food but the environment as well. Some hold the position that this method is inhumane and should not be allowed. However, others argue that this process creates economically cheap food and allows food to be produced at a faster rate. Therefore, the factory farming industry can improve its conditions in all aspects if it is reformed to successfully satisfy the rights that the livestock deserve and

In America sacred cows do not exit, in fact we defend our freedom to choose meat. However, that freedom tears at the very core of who we are as a nation. If America is truly just, how can we explain factory farming? Factory farming is not just intrinsically evil; it is cruel and unusual punishment. Animals are regularly sawed in half and placed in cramped quarters throughout their existence. The media regularly denounces the use of the death penalty but are completely complacent regarding factory farming.

In the last few pages of the document, Singer discusses the differences between humans and animals when it comes to consuming food. While some make the argument that animals eat meat and so should we, Singer states that humans have higher moral reasoning so are able to move pass such base thinking. Moreover, since the way that humans consume meat typically is rather cruel to animals. Much crueler then animals treat each other. Singer discusses the lives of farm animals, who are essentially bred to be slaughtered, given very poor lives, and live in constant fear.

Humans have the same right to eat any animal we want just like how lions have the right to eat any animal they want it’s a natural thing that every omnivore and carnivore has. Just like lions humans naturally need to eat meat because people that don’t eat meat they have to take a supplement. The best way for humans to eat meat is through mass farming plus the animals that are born into this don’t know different nor what they are missing out on, and they are probably not even thinking what it would be like to be in a field. If a lion gets to kill an antelope then I get to eat a nice steak from any place I want because we both have the same right of eating

A Judeo-Christian interpretation from the Bible stated that “dominion over animals meant that any degree of exploitation was acceptable has changed for most people to mean that each person has responsibility for animal welfare (Aquinas T., 2006).”

In Genesis 1:28 God says, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” By giving humans dominion, God wanted them to tend to the earth and take care of it—instead of dominating it—in the same way that he tends to humans and takes care of them. This shows that God gave humans authority over other beings for the purpose of nurturing them just as God has authority over humans which he uses for the purpose of nurturing. In this way humans’ authority shows that they are made in the image of

For human, to master agriculture and trade about 10,000 years ago widely expanded their food options that enable modern human to become a vegetarian (Corliss). A vegetarian does not eat meat not only because it tastes bad, but also it means something to him or her. The more one has faith in vegetarianism, the more one restricts one’s food choice in reality. Henry David Thoreau, who is known as one of the first environmental writers of the 20th century in the U.S. and had lived in woods alone, writes in his essay Walden that hunting and eating animals had bothered him because it seemed as it degraded himself to a beast. For him, eating animals is “not agreeable to [his] imagination” (Thoreau 169) as Thoreau strongly believed that “to leave off eating animals” is “a part of the destiny of the human race” (Thoreau 170). While his belief and the reality he faced had conflicted each other, he tried his best to find a way to live without relying much on meat. Even in a wild, what drove Thoreau was anthropocentric thinking that human can control nature. This dilemma in food choice that bothered Thoreau is what Michael Pollan calls the omnivore’s dilemma. He puts it in his same-titled book in this way: “When you can eat just about anything nature has to offer,