The Pros And Cons Of Factory Farming

Michael Pollan’s, An Animal’s Place, analyzes the controversial topic of animal abuse while Pollan himself struggles to comprehend the relationship between humans and non-humans. Whether animals are used for food or clothing, Pollan’s impartial view of the moral ethics behind the treatment of animals acknowledges that we as readers are susceptible to influence and he encourages the questioning of our own beliefs. Rather than succumbing to Singer’s, All Animals are Equal demands of making it our “Moral obligation to cease supporting the practice” (pg.4), Pollan conveys the benefits as well as the concerns to the consummation of animals. From the personal connection Pollan establishes with his readers, his progressive beliefs

The question of the correct ethical treatment of animals has been a topic of many heated debates. The basis of this discussion arises numerous premises that justifies the treatment of animals. Whether animal do in fact have a sentient? And what is distinctive about humanity such that humans are thought to have moral status and non-human do not? Providing an answer to the correct ethical treatment of animals has become increasingly paramount among society as well as philosophers.

Over the last 10 years or so Americans have been at odds with themselves and other Americans regarding the treatment of food source animals. The term “factory farm” is being coined for method in which animals are being processed in the food system. I will be discussing what a factory farm is, who or what benefits from them, and finally at what cost? Factory Farms have become an institution in support of the American way life, regardless of what we think; they have advantages and disadvantages.

Have you ever wondered what you’re really eating, where the ground beef in your cheeseburger comes from, or if the animals are getting the same satisfaction and happiness that your hunger gets? Factory farming is the reason for these questions we ask ourselves. They say we should eat animal products that trace back to factory farms because they wouldn’t raise anything that’s not good for us in a “farm”. I say that you shouldn’t eat animal products from factory farms because of the corrupted conditions animals live in. They might object that factory farms is a better choice because you get more bang for your buck versus going to a farmers market and spending an arm and a leg for naturally raised produce.

In “The Case for Animal Rights,” Regan states that instead of viewing animals as existing solely for human disposal, or as having value only because they retain the same feelings of pain and satisfaction humans do, we should consider animals as

Regan, Tom. "Animal Rights, Human Wrongs." Forming a Critical Perspective. Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2010. 336-40. Print.


   The factory farming industry strives to maximize output while minimizing cost, always at the animals’ expense. The big corporations that run most factory farms have found that they can

Gary has been holding a position where he has been fighting for animal rights through his books. He argues that animals are seen as property instead of a person. There are several reason as to why animal rights are the way they are, and until laws are changed animals will continue to suffer.( Gary L. Francione,1996) To support his argument he studies the results from when common-law, civil-law traditions are involved. These laws are relevant, because it gives scientist and food distributor’s leverage to give reason as to why animals’ being considered property is not a form of abuse. Gary opposes this claim for a very good reason; he states that animals have a “defect”, such as their incapability to communicate using language. Gary finds that the issues with this are that, welfare is failing to recognize the interest of animals. In his observation he finds that the key to provide animals with useful rights is to convince society, exercise wellness benefits, and demand change.

In Peter Singer's article all animals are equal, Peter Singer argues for the moral considerability of animals. His main argument boils down to, we ought to extend to nonhuman animals the same equality of consideration that we extend human beings. Now whether or not eating meat is morally justifiable is a good question. In this paper, I will argue that it is not morally justifiable to eat meat, however with the exception of a few alternatives. The immorality of killing an animal for its flesh is morally wrong, for example most of the meat that we consume in urban modern societies is from factory farms. Factory farms employ extremely cruel farming tactics, for example putting up to six chickens in a single cage this gives them barely enough room to move or even open the wings. Chickens for example raised in factory

Many people for factory farms view this as one of their many benefits. These types of business do not pay much, nor do they take much capital to stay open; therefore, their profit margin is very large. The main reason these business are so cheaply run, and produce cheap food, is because of the cruelty the animals are put through. Organic farms invest much more time into their animals and organisms, while factory farms do not. The animals in a factory farm are very limited in space and feed. Animals are not fed with expensive feed, or given space to roam around and be themselves. In fact, each animal is confined to about 2.5 to 4 feet of space (Park 34). Pigs have in North Carolina have also tested positive for being fed dog food (Kirby 356). When the baby pigs are born, they have their tails removed and are immediately castrated without any pain medication (“Farm Sanctuary”). Once the piglets do not need their mother's milk anymore (weaned) their mother’s are placed back into gestation crates and immediately impregnated again (“Farm Sanctuary”). Pregnant mothers spend their entire pregnancy in gestation crates (“Farm Sanctuary”). The turnover rate is extremely high. Mothers do not have long to heal after birth. Chickens are also mistreated. They are each placed in very small battery cages. Inside the battery cages, the hens can't even flap their wings (Park 41). Chickens no longer see the life

In Peter Singer’s essay, “Equality for Animals”, he argues that the principle of equal consideration of interests can extend beyond just the interests of human beings. He starts out saying just because there is oppression within our own species, does not mean that our attitude against animals should be taken less seriously. Going into several topics Singer tries to convey that we may have the wrong idea about animals.

Animal rights has been a topic of controversy for the last decade and the question arises on whether or not animals have rights. In the quote from Arthur Schopenhauer’s The Basis of Morality, the main argument is that the only way humans can remain moral is if we treat all animals with compassion. Schopenhauer uses different comparisons in the short quote to improve the impact on the reader as well as show the way humans view the animals being treated. With that, it is evident that animals do need basic rights which can potentially be achieved through proper compassion and care. These animals need to have the ability to freely express their personalities as well as the proper attention and interactions on a daily basis.

Humans may have been supposed to be vegetarians, but we are the rulers of the food chain. This paper will be addressing the issues of the roles and morality involving animals on a religious level. Christianity and Buddhism both agree and disagree concerning what beasts means to us. Using the teachings and proverbs of Jesus and Buddha, we will figure out the rightful place of animals in this world. While Buddhism has a more detailed view of how we need to regard animals, I will be using Christianity as our primary example because I believe it to be how this relationship between humans and animals is rightfully supposed to be.

We have seen countless examples by Carl Safina in Beyond Words, of animals exhibiting many of the previously thought human characteristics. Starting from the great mammals, such as elephants, whales, chimpanzees, and wolves, down to the smallest birds and fish, we have seen their intellect, emotions, compassion, need for companionship and family. The cognitive and emotional overlap between humans and nonhuman animals is evident through Safina’s first hand observations of animals in the wild, in ways that exhibit theory of mind, conscience thought, self-awareness and deception; all previously thought to be only human qualities. We are equal in many ways and we humans need to take the responsibility to correct what we have created. In many cases, WE have taken away the dignified existence all animals deserve. There are many obstacles that must be overcome; physical, economic and political to name just a few. But justice – a moral principle and basic right of equality of treatment, in equal circumstances, receiving what you deserve, needs to cross over the species boundary in the nonhuman animal kingdom. This is not only imperative for the survival of animals, but for the human race

We are a nation of meat eaters. We are socialized from a young age to consume high levels of animal products. This deeply ingrained meat-eating tradition is a big part of the American standard diet. A visit to the local grocery store shows that there is no shortage of animal products. Isle by isle you see a plethora of meats, neatly packed and ready to be cooked, dairy products neatly shelved, and even candies that contain animal by-products. This is an omnivore’s utopia, allowing for a lifestyle that involves the overconsumption of meats and animal by-products. The rampant meat industry has managed to condition people to disassociate the meats in our grocery markets and the animals from which they came. Most people have become unaware omnivores, consuming whatever meats are available to them. This shift of moral degradation is evident in how we process and consume our meats. We have become a selfish society that values our own convenience and affordability of meat rather than the consideration of the animal. This begs the question, is eating meat inherently wrong and should we forbid meat consumption under any and all circumstances? To fully address this issue, we must first define the moral status of animals. So, are animals equal to humans in worth and value and should they receive similar treatment?