Factory Farm Ethics Case Study

In the book Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, the author talks about, not only vegetarianism, but reveals to us what actually occurs in the factory farming system. The issue circulating in this book is whether to eat meat or not to eat meat. Foer, however, never tries to convert his reader to become vegetarians but rather to inform them with information so they can respond with better judgment. Eating meat has been a thing that majority of us engage in without question. Which is why among other reasons Foer feels compelled to share his findings about where our meat come from. Throughout the book, he gives vivid accounts of the dreadful conditions factory farmed animals endure on a daily basis. For this reason Foer urges us to take a

Norcross gives the case of Fred, a man who suffered head trauma in a car accident. After discovering that he can no longer taste chocolate, Fred discovers that “the accident had irreparably damaged the godiva gland, which secretes cocoamone, the hormone responsible for the experience of chocolate” (230). It turns out that tormented and abused puppies could produce cocoamone if they suffered enough stress and physical pain. Fred set up a lab in his basement and kept the puppiies in cages only letting them out to be abused so they could produce the hormone and he could taste chocolate again. Norcross argues that if Fred’s behavior is wrong then it is wrong to support factory farming.

He quotes, “ If I am going to eat meat, I want it to be from an animal that has lived a pleasant, uncrowded life outdoors, on bountiful pasture, with good water nearby and trees for shade” (52). This claim of value shows how consumers should know how food is considered as livestock and what animals go through to become meat. The cheeseburger consumers would buy from McDonald’s would be satisfying, but eaters do not realize anything about how the animal was treated or any of its background. Advertising keeps us buying food that is introduced to use as flavorful and looking good, so businesses can keep profits coming to them. The product at a grocery store seems appealing to us, so eaters buy and enjoy without having a doubt about the product. It seems like quantity is more important than

A poll conducted by the ASPCA revealed that 94% of Americans believe that production animals, specifically those raised for food, deserve to live a comfortable life free of cruelty and neglect. Despite this belief, many factory farm animals are abused and neglected in such ways that, if witnessed by consumers, would not be accepted. Over 99% of the United State’s farm animals live on factory farms that use them for means of profit, many of them violating the Animal Welfare Act and other laws put in place to protect the humane treatment of animals (ASPCA). This abuse is not limited to any specific type of farm animal. Although different animals are used for different purposes, they all share a common suffering and a need for humane care.

Alastair Norcross argues that factory farming is a morally incorrect action in his piece “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases.” Norcross illustrates the story of Fred, a man who lost the ability to savor chocolate after damaging his godiva gland. As a result of Fred’s deficiency and love of chocolate he decides to mutilate and abuse puppies to acquire the necessary cocoamone needed for Fred to taste chocolate again. Norcross explains that puppies release cocoamone when placed under stressful situations where suffering is experienced. Norcross explains that Fred’s actions against puppies are made public and Fred comes to criticism.

It presents an extreme version of the opposing argument, and persuades the reader to think of Australians for Animal Rights as being unreasonably controlling. Conversely, the writer presents himself as being both progressive and reasonable. The irony of the situation is ‘to provide cheap food when we could afford to pay more’, suggesting that Australians for Animal Rights is being manipulative and hypocritical. The reader is positioned to reject any Australians for Animal Rights’s attempt to gain even more power. Using inclusive language, the writer suggested that the issue is inescapable. This reinforces the argument that people must act now and also emphasises the issue’s relevance and significance to the

Do animals have the right to a certain quality of life? How would your views change if our cooks got treated the same way cattle and poultry do? How would you feel about them being beaten and brought to their knees just to be detained to know how to cook todays specials? You might think that the food industry has no issues and no faults behind their tasty food, but when you open up the meat curtain, there is a different kind of world out there that is cruel and inhumane. In Robert Kenner’s 2008 film, Food, Inc., He shows the conditions that cows, chickens, and pigs have to live in. The dark and closeted homes in which the animals are closely compacted together and eating, sleeping, and walking in their own manure. As a person who would consider themselves an animal rights activist, most people would agree that the food industry treats their animals like products instead of living things.

1. Thesis “Is it wrong to eat products from factory farms?” (435, Norcross) 2. Support for Thesis Norcross makes an example out of Fred who has puppies locked in his basement to people who eat animals. Fred is taken to trial and explains his reasoning for the torture of puppies one being his love for chocolate.

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 2005, the Vermont Teddy Bear Company produced a controversial bear for the Valentine holiday. The bear that was made was called “Crazy for You” and wore a straitjacket. It became an issue when the company was confronted for offending the mentally ill. After the problem became apparent to the organization, it responded by saying that it would continue selling the toy until the inventory was empty. It was put out for the public in January and was sold out by February 3. The ethical issue in this case is whether or not Vermont Teddy Bear Company handled the situation ethically correct.

The first dilemma is observable in the sphere of the American meat industry. The unhygienic conditions of meat production units, and the pathetic conditions of the places where the cattle are kept, both point toward indulgence in unethical practices. From the deontological perspective and from the utilitarian perspective if the meat production scenario, as depicted in the documentary, is considered then a clear picture of unethical practice will come before the eyes of the spectators of the movie. The disgusting condition of the meat industry has contributed to the infamy of the meat industry and its rotten nature. From the deontological perspective it can be said that, it is the duty of an employer to ensure the safety and security of his employees. But Robert Kenner, in the documentary, has shown how the employers in the sphere of American meat industry are indifferent to this basic duty. These employers refrain from being accountable to their employees and to the common public as well. The higher rate of workplace injury in the context of the meat industry is a burning truth and this truth indicates how unethical the approaches of the employers are. From the utilitarian perspective, if judged, it can be seen that, the food industry must be very much cautious about its modes of production and about the quality of its produces. This is primarily because food is consumed by a huge number of consumers

Although learning about the vegan store's expenditure is discomforting, I do not find it morally obligatory to take my business elsewhere. Indirect financing of factory farming is undesirable, but there is no straightforward solution to prevent it from happening altogether. Philosopher Ted Warfield has even argued that it is difficult and complex to defend the claim that directly purchasing factory farmed products is in itself wrong.

In addition to his solutions, Pollan’s modern narrative sheds light on the façade of our food industries; asking us to rethink what we know. Despite the mention of certain inhumane acts in All Animals are Equal, Pollan takes us one step further to uncover the reason for which we continue to purchase our corrupt food. We all know animal abuse exists, but the average consumer like myself is more worried about the best price and the fastest way to get a burger rather than how fairly the animals are treated in the process. Whether it be the confined living space of chickens or the mental and physical torture of pigs, we continue to blind ourselves from reality. Is it purely out of selfishness? Or are we too ignorant to come to terms with our wrong doings? Like Pollan explains, it takes seeing the abuse before the shame of our disrespect can be felt (pg.6). After seeing Pollan’s truth, I might now think twice before eating out and the choice to support organic produce can make a dramatic difference for those farmers who promote the ethical lifestyle.

In “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable,” Gary Steiner argues against the eating, or using, of animals and animal products. Steiner is the author of multiple books on topics similar to this, and a dedicated vegan of fifteen years at the time of this article. The author begins with an allusion to the recent outcries for the humane treatment of animals being raised for food. However, he points out, no one seems to be concerned about the animals being slaughtered, merely that they were not abused beforehand. Steiner then goes on to explain the two main

Many companies, like McDonalds, lie about what actually goes on at their farms. “Free range” “Cruelty free” “Killed in a humane way” Those are just some the things that consumers are told and believe everyday. Saying thank you to the animal before munching on its flesh and bones doesn’t excuse what happens to them. The abuse and torture animals go through at factory farms isn’t fair and needs to be stopped immediately.