On Animal Suffering & Carnivorous Tendencies

The aim of this piece is to promote a world in which human interests are maximized, while at the same time, our indirect duties to animals are maintained. It is directed toward those who believe that it is permissible to consume animals for food, but that we have indirect duties to refrain from the abuse and mistreatment of such animals. It will be argued, on Utilitarian grounds, that the current system of factory farming is in need of revision. My solution to this problem, however, is quite unique. Contrary to the views of many previous philosopher-advocates before me, I shall not argue for a vegetarian lifestyle, nor shall I reach the conclusion that an animal’s life should be given equal consideration as a human’s. I shall maintain that we have a duty to eat more free-range meat, provided that this free-range production does not entail the abuse, mistreatment, and/or suffering of animals (It shall be held that humane killing of an animal does not fall into these categories. I shall not argue extensively this point here, it is to be assumed true for the purposes of this paper.) It shall be shown that such a move would maximize the overall utility, as well as be morally superior to the current system. It shall also be shown that the effects of such a move would be more beneficial than those of a change to a vegetarian lifestyle, as well as having more benefit that simple advocating for animals rights would have.

Let us now discuss the reasons that factory farming is in need of revision, and on what grounds we believe this. The current system of factory farming harms animals in many ways (or, in interest utilitarian terms, frustrates their interests). I believe that animals have an interest in not suffering pain, being mistreated, and not being abused. I do not believe that animals have an interest in life, but shall not argue this point in this paper. As mentioned at the outset, this paper is directed towards those that believe that killing and eating animals is morally permissible, as long as it does not entail the suffering of those animals. This is a position I believe many would be inclined to accept (given that the large volume of meat eaters already accept that eating meat is ok, and many are simply not aware of how the animals are treated.) What exactly is done to these animals in their trip from birth to the store shelves? I shall refer to Engel’s section on Factory Farming and Modern Slaughter: The Cruelty Behind the Cellophane in his The Immorality of Eating Meat, perhaps one of the more concise and informative accounts of factory farming. To quote Engel’s article:

“Before they become someone’s dinner, most farm animals raised in the U.S. must endure intense pain and suffering in “factory farms.” Factory farms are intensive confinement facilities where animals are forced to live in inhospitable unnatural conditions for the duration of their lives. The first step in intensive farming is early separation of mother and offspring. The offspring are then housed in overcrowded confinement facilities. Broiler chickens are warehoused in sheds containing anywhere from 10,000-50,000 birds; veal calves are kept in crates chained at the neck; pigs are confined in metal crates situated on concrete slatted floors with no straw or bedding; and beef cattle are housed in feedlots containing up to 100,000 animals. The inappropriate, unforgiving surfaces on which the animals must stand produce foot and leg injuries. Since they cannot move about, they must stand in their own waste. In these cramped, unsanitary conditions, virtually all of the animals’ basic instinctual urges (e.g. to nurse, stretch, move around, root, groom, establish social orders, build nests, rut) are frustrated, causing boredom and stress in the animals. The stress and unsanitary conditions compromise their immune systems. To prevent large losses due to disease, the animals are fed a steady diet of antibiotics and growth hormones. When it comes to feed, disease prevention isn’t the only consideration. Another is cost. The USDA has approved all sorts of cost-cutting dietary “innovations” including: (i) adding the ground up remains of dead diseased animals (unfit for human consumption) to these herbivorous animals’ feed,, (ii) adding cement dust to cattle feed to promote rapid weight gain, and (iii)adding the animals’ own feces to their feed.” (Engel, 861-863)

Furthermore, many animals receive preventative mutilations. Birds are de-beaked to prevent pecking, their toes sliced off to curtail scratching; pigs may have their tails sliced off, and cows are subject to “tail docking, branding, dehorning, ear tagging, ear clipping, teeth pulling, castration, and ovariectomy” (Engel, 864). This torture continues through the transportation, handling, and slaughter stages, where animals are treated inhumanely, hung upside down from hooks, sliced open, bled to death, and killed without the use of anesthetic or a conscience inhibitor. Again, referring to Engel’s article:

“These animal rearing and slaughtering techniques are by no means rare: 98% of all eggs and poultry are produced in factory farms, 90% of pigs are raised in confinement systems, half of the nation’s dairy cows are raised in confinement systems, virtually all veal calves are crate-raised, and 71% of beef cattle are confined in factory farm feedlots. To see just how many animals suffer the institutionalized cruelties of factory farming, consider the number slaughtered in the U.S. each day. According to The New York Times, 130,000 cattle, 7,000 calves, 360,000 pigs, and 24 million chickens are slaughtered every day. Extrapolation reveals that 8.94 billion animals are raised and slaughtered annually, not counting turkeys, ducks, sheep, emu, or fish. Consequently, over 17,000 animals are slaughtered per minute. Suffice it to say that no other human activity results in more pain, suffering, frustration and death than factory farming and animal agribusiness.” (Engel, 866-867)

Thus, the factory farming system is in major need of reform. The interests of animals are being severely frustrated, and the abuse, suffering, and mistreatment of animals during the process is immoral on utilitarian grounds.

As mentioned above, for the purposes of this paper, free-range is defined as the system of producing animal meat that does not entail the suffering, mistreatment, and abuse of animals. Thus, eating meat from such a system is morally acceptable, is preferable to eating meat produced from the current system, and would satisfy the indirect duties we have to animals. But what benefit, if any, can come from increasing our consumption of free-range meat? If consumption of free-range meat were to increase, the benefits would be extensive. Suppose first that only those who already eat solely free-range meat simply increase their consumption of said meat. This alone would have many positive effects on the system. First, it would force the current operations to increase their production of meat, and also increase the profit levels of such companies that produce meat in this way. This would have an effect of increasing profits while at the same time driving down the cost of producing the meat (as those farms could now get many bulk discounts they couldn’t receive before, receive deals on buying large scale property rights, etc.) In addition, it would cause the distribution of free-range meat to increase, making it more available. More stores would be willing to carry this meat, as there is more of a demand for the product. Another foreseeable benefit would be that perhaps those companies that ran both factory farms and free-range farms would be willing to devote more of their land, business, and efforts to their free-range division. All of these steps would have the effect of increasing utility, minimizing the suffering of animals, maintaining the lifestyle of humans (as they are still able to enjoy meat), and making the world a morally better place. But this is only the tip of the iceberg of change, so to speak. Let us now discuss the effects that would come about if current factory farm meat eaters began purchasing solely free-range meat.

The ramifications of such a move would be overwhelming, to say the least. First and foremost, all of the benefits mentioned above would be drastically increased. The market would drive the production of free-range meat higher and higher, resulting in lower and lower costs of producing such meat, a lower price at the consumer end, and an increased availability of this meat. Areas that currently have no supply of free-range meat would begin to carry it, and this would drive even more persons to switch to eating this meat. Stores would be willing to carry the meat, as they would both be able to maintain (if not increase) their profits, as well as be more morally responsible. Companies that currently produce, transport, and handle factory farmed meat would be able to place more and more of their business in the sector of free-range meat, and they would scale down the factory farming divisions of their companies, as supply would be dwindling. In addition, they would be able to correctly advertise that they were meeting their corporate responsibility duties by acting in a morally responsible way, thus increasing their sales and corporate image. All of this would, of course, contribute to the important change in status quo that we wanted; namely the reduction of animal suffering, harm, and abuse. Yet there are even more benefits of such a system; benefits that may not be readily apparent at the outset, but are secondary benefits nonetheless. For one, the overall average cost of meat would be slightly increased as a result of a move toward more free-range farming of meat (as the cost could never fall to the levels of factory farming – this is the reason we factory farm in the first place – however, the cost of the free-range meat would be lower than it had been before the move). This could have positive health benefits by allowing the limited consumption of meat after the change, or perhaps limiting the intake of high fat meat that typically comes as a result of fattening the cows with cornmeal and cement, among other things. The new, organic, natural meat would be healthier for people, could be lower in added chemicals, and would still maintain the proteins necessary by humans to produce the essential amino acids. In addition, much of the land currently used to grow the corn in order to feed the cows could be freed up, allowing the growth of other natural grains for human consumption (including beneficial crops such as soy, wheat, and beans), and allowing for other free range animals to be raised. These secondary benefits that would arise as a result of a move toward a primarily free-range system would be great.

As has been shown, the suffering of animals would be significantly reduced if everyone were to move towards a truly free-range system. This is not a hard move to advocate from our present position, and this is one significant benefit that my view has over those that advocate vegetarianism and vegan lifestyles. The evidence is overwhelming that the majority of people already find it morally acceptable to eat meat. The consumption of meat is a multi-billion dollar industry, with billions of people eating meat on this planet. They do this largely without the consideration of how animals are raised and treated before they end up on their plates. This does not necessarily mean that they do not care about how the animals are treated, but it does show that they find nothing wrong with the consumption of meat, nor do they find any harm in killing animals for that consumption (It is hard believe that many people believed the meat they ate died naturally.) Consumers of meat products typically are not aware of the abuse and atrocious treatment of animals that occurs in our present system. The advantage my solution has over vegetarianism is that it works within this context to reduce the harm and suffering done to animals. Many people, when informed of the treatment animals receive before we consume them, would be upset, angry, hurt, or maybe remain indifferent. What does seem certain, however, is that the large majority of those would be willing to pay a small amount more for free-range, humanely killed meat if it was easily attainable (readily available). These billions of people would obviously not be willing to become vegetarians, as they clearly see nothing wrong in the act of killing and eating animals, and thus such an argument cannot reduce the suffering of animals. One could counter that they would reduce their meat consumption if informed of the treatment of animals, but as I said at the outset, this would have even less benefit than would converting to and increasing the consumption of free-range meat.

The benefits resulting from the conversion to and increased consumption of free-range meat would far outweigh any utility achieved through a reduction in factory farmed meat consumption. Such a reduction would have far less of an impact on the system of meat production, and would certainly not reduce the suffering of animals as much as someone who switched to eating solely free-range meat. This point is very easy to measure, for even if you reduced meat consumption to one pound of meat a month per person (or to any quantifiable amount), this would still entail that the animal source of that meat suffer, while any amount of free-range meat eaten would not entail any suffering to any animal. Thus, reduction of eating factory meat can never have the positive effects that would come about from one switching to free-range meat. In addition, as discussed with vegetarianism, a person who currently eats meat obviously finds nothing wrong with the killing and consumption of animals. To get a current meat eater to reduce his consumption of meat would entail more effort on his part than would switching to free-range meat, especially when this free-range meat became widely available, as well as dropped in price due to increased consumption. Thus, the charges of alternative systems as being better than my system in reducing animal suffering can be averted. It is clear that the most beneficial system, the system that increases the overall utility, maintains the human interest of eating meat, and reduces the suffering and abuse of animals the most, would be that of a free-range switch. A further objection that can be raised is that we have a moral responsibility to protest against the factory farming system. I believe that one can fulfill their responsibility by simply switching to free-range meat (as I don’t think that negative responsibility is morally equivalent to positive action). However, protesting is not excluded under my system. One can still protest against the factory farming system while eating free-range meat, the two are not mutually exclusive.

The end result of this argument is to show that converting to eating only free-range meat is the most morally advantageous, beneficial, and easiest resolution to reducing the pain and suffering of animals. The benefits produced would be great, and the likelihood of conversion would be high. As I outlined at the start, this paper is addressed to and applies only to those who find it morally acceptable to kill and eat animals, as long as suffering and abuse is not incurred. This is a position that I believe is morally acceptable, and one that I believe that the majority of people on this planet accept. This is evidenced by the very fact that billions of people, the overwhelming majority, eat meat. Little consideration is given as to where this meat came from, or to the conditions under which the animals lived and died. It is clear then that many of these persons would find it more morally appealing to reduce the suffering and mistreatment of animals, and perhaps be willing to take the minor steps necessary to make this happen. Even if they chose to remain indifferent toward the suffering of animals (being amoral), they may still see the benefits of a free-range system through some of the secondary benefits mentioned above, as well as wish to reduce suffering in order to simply make the world a better place (as being amoral is not equivalent with being evil, nor with having no concern with others moral considerations). A good ethical system should be one that can be easily adopted by those persons involved, is internally coherent, is able to be adhered to by rational, moral people with a motivation to do good, and makes sense to a critical philosophical eye. An excellent moral system would be one that could be adopted by a wide range of people, and would involve minimal effort on the part of moral agents to act on it. I believe that my system falls under both of these. We have a moral duty to increase our consumption of free-range meat, and this is the easiest and most beneficial alternative to the current system. So go ahead and eat your steak, just do so in a morally responsible manner. You can, after all, have your steak and eat it too.

Works Cited:

Engel, Mylan. The Immorality of Eating Meat. Louis Pojman, ed., The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature, pp. 856-890.