My one objection here is that "factory farming" isn't significantly different in an ethical sense from any other kind of animal farming. The solution, however, is very simple and (should be) obvious: just stop eating animals. If more people would get over their ingrained bad habits and do that, it would not only reduced the horrendous suffering on a vast scale, but would also vastly improve their own health and happiness, as well as solving serious environmental problems. It's easy. It's legal. It's safe. It's healthy. You can do it all by yourself and make a difference (even if you're not solving 100% of the worldwide problem). And it's the least any decent human being should do.
I wasn't taking a position in the article on other kidns of farming--just saying factory farming is obviously evil. I've elsewhere argued that you shouldn't eat other kinds of animal products.
I'd argue that factory farming, or more specifically, treating animals as mere products to make like pencils or furniture, is the problem. I can imagine a world were animals are treated as good as possible and still eaten. This would make meat much more expensive and would have the effect of making the whole industry much smaller. Of course you could still argue that we could get better at making fake meat products (I suspect growing meat in labs is much harder than people realize) and eliminate the need for farming altogether, but either way, it's our treatment of animals that ultimately matter, not wether or not they are eaten.
@Lembard Fluorescentine: Yes, exactly. Animal rights lawyer/philosopher Gary Francione has been making this point for something like 30 years. His writing has been very influential in how I view animal issues.
How does your theodicy account for such vast amounts of horrific animal suffering? I know you believe God puts us in an indifferent-seeming universe out of the idea that experiencing such indifference and separation from God eventually strengthens one's relationship with him, but this logic seems to face the glaring hole of animal suffering. Animals are not intelligent enough to conceive of God, so their suffering in an indifferent world apart from God provides no soul-building benefit. It seems unlikely that a God interested in the benefit of every soul would allow a world where a tiny minority of souls (humans) receive soul-building benefit from their suffering, but the vast majority of souls in existence lead short, terrible lives without even the capacity to make that suffering benefit higher ends. Even if you say that factory farming is a necessary evil as a result of God giving humans the freedom to act in the world, including immorally, that doesn't account for wild animal suffering which affects orders of magnitude more creatures who are also suffering horribly towards no spiritual end. Basically what I'm saying is that I feel your anger and revulsion towards the horrific suffering imposed on animals, both by man and nature, and I wonder how you can justify the existence of a good, all-loving God allowing such pointless suffering to play out.
Yes, yes and yes. One problem : Stop the focus on factory farming and condemn all kind of animal agriculture. This contributes to the idea that there is a right way to objectify animals, which is just morally abhorrent. It's wrong to kill and eat happy pigs just as it is wrong to kill and eat happy golden retrievers or happy humans. Thanks
I think it's fine to focus on factory farms for a few reasons:
1. The vast majority of meat production occurs in factory farms
2. The conditions on factory farms are far, far worse than any traditional conception of animal agriculture. A lot of people (including me, several years ago) believe that animals live on a farm for a few years and then get swiftly executed in a relatively painless way. Reading about the unspeakable horrors of factory farming in detail is specifically what made me change my mind about veganism.
3. I've seen many people argue against veganism by saying meat consumption is more "natural" and therefore healthier, or that vegans are overly compassionate towards animals and are ignoring "laws of nature." Except, factory farming is the farthest thing from "natural" and I think it's important to emphasize this misconception rather than just saying animal consumption is immoral altogether.
Bentham's Bulldog wrote: "Those of us who remain complicit in this [animal abuse] are doing something seriously morally wrong, and should cease immediately. "
May I suggest that you spend some space on your blog advocating in favor of veganism? Your articles strike me as being a bit like impassioned screeds against scurvy with nary a mention that eating citrus fruits can cure it.
I've been vegan for over 20 years now, and it's much easier than most people assume. It's also good for the environment and is much better than the standard American diet (appropriately abbreviated as SAD).
I don't approve of eating free-range chickens or pasture-fed cows or whatever. There's no such thing as humane animal products. Eat vegan, and you don't need to worry about chicks being ground up alive or whatever.
I don't see any explicit mention of veganism and how easy it is to adopt that way of living (and the benefits of veganism aside from animal-related issues). What you did write is actually counterproductive, I think: "Maybe there’s an ethical way to eat animals." There isn't.
"smell. But then so too is it evil to gas pigs to death because you like the taste—particularly when you don’t need to. You don’t have to eat animal products—avoiding them is probably better for your health"
I've written against eating from humane farms elsewhere, but I think you should start with the uncontroversial position before moving on to the more controversial one.
OK, I stand corrected, at least partly. But the majority of your writing about animals focuses much more on the problem rather than on the simple solution that individuals can adopt.
Also, how about putting various animal welfare measures on the ballot in various US states? And also pushing legal scholars to help redefine personhood in such a way that it includes non-human animals as well?
correct & good. what do you think about this argument in favor of humane husbandry?
the lives of non-human animals have some positive value. i.e. their existence is ceteris paribus good. plausibly this value scales with some feature of the animal (neuron count/synaptic density, degree of cortical folding, & etc.)
humane husbandry allows for the existence of more animals than would otherwise exist. they would not exist without the demand for them & the demand comes from their meat. this implies that eating the meat of animals raised well is not neutral, it is good. it will cause more of them to exist & live flourishing lives in their context.
this avoids the main problem of factory farming, which is suffering. it does result in many killings, but the problem with killings is that they're rights violations & plausibly non-human animals lack those.
My one objection here is that "factory farming" isn't significantly different in an ethical sense from any other kind of animal farming. The solution, however, is very simple and (should be) obvious: just stop eating animals. If more people would get over their ingrained bad habits and do that, it would not only reduced the horrendous suffering on a vast scale, but would also vastly improve their own health and happiness, as well as solving serious environmental problems. It's easy. It's legal. It's safe. It's healthy. You can do it all by yourself and make a difference (even if you're not solving 100% of the worldwide problem). And it's the least any decent human being should do.
I wasn't taking a position in the article on other kidns of farming--just saying factory farming is obviously evil. I've elsewhere argued that you shouldn't eat other kinds of animal products.
I'd argue that factory farming, or more specifically, treating animals as mere products to make like pencils or furniture, is the problem. I can imagine a world were animals are treated as good as possible and still eaten. This would make meat much more expensive and would have the effect of making the whole industry much smaller. Of course you could still argue that we could get better at making fake meat products (I suspect growing meat in labs is much harder than people realize) and eliminate the need for farming altogether, but either way, it's our treatment of animals that ultimately matter, not wether or not they are eaten.
@Lembard Fluorescentine: Yes, exactly. Animal rights lawyer/philosopher Gary Francione has been making this point for something like 30 years. His writing has been very influential in how I view animal issues.
I think it's good that this is a common topic on your blog, and you should continue regularly posting about it to inform new readers.
Your articles have definitely inspired me to reduce my animal product consumption and I will be becoming vegan in the near future.
That's great to hear!
100% right. Love the indignant voiceover.
How does your theodicy account for such vast amounts of horrific animal suffering? I know you believe God puts us in an indifferent-seeming universe out of the idea that experiencing such indifference and separation from God eventually strengthens one's relationship with him, but this logic seems to face the glaring hole of animal suffering. Animals are not intelligent enough to conceive of God, so their suffering in an indifferent world apart from God provides no soul-building benefit. It seems unlikely that a God interested in the benefit of every soul would allow a world where a tiny minority of souls (humans) receive soul-building benefit from their suffering, but the vast majority of souls in existence lead short, terrible lives without even the capacity to make that suffering benefit higher ends. Even if you say that factory farming is a necessary evil as a result of God giving humans the freedom to act in the world, including immorally, that doesn't account for wild animal suffering which affects orders of magnitude more creatures who are also suffering horribly towards no spiritual end. Basically what I'm saying is that I feel your anger and revulsion towards the horrific suffering imposed on animals, both by man and nature, and I wonder how you can justify the existence of a good, all-loving God allowing such pointless suffering to play out.
Several points:
1) Animals can undergo soul building, most of which occurs in the afterlife from having endured the suffering of this life.
2) There might be unknown goods.
3) I predict the future is decently likely to be a transhumanist utopia, having mostly humans, so animal suffering is worth it.
4) Even if we need a lot of animal suffering for God's aims, given that the benefit is infinite, it's tragically worth it.
Please write an article about dairy cows. What are their conditions like? I’m a vegetarian who really likes cheese.
Yes, yes and yes. One problem : Stop the focus on factory farming and condemn all kind of animal agriculture. This contributes to the idea that there is a right way to objectify animals, which is just morally abhorrent. It's wrong to kill and eat happy pigs just as it is wrong to kill and eat happy golden retrievers or happy humans. Thanks
I think it's fine to focus on factory farms for a few reasons:
1. The vast majority of meat production occurs in factory farms
2. The conditions on factory farms are far, far worse than any traditional conception of animal agriculture. A lot of people (including me, several years ago) believe that animals live on a farm for a few years and then get swiftly executed in a relatively painless way. Reading about the unspeakable horrors of factory farming in detail is specifically what made me change my mind about veganism.
3. I've seen many people argue against veganism by saying meat consumption is more "natural" and therefore healthier, or that vegans are overly compassionate towards animals and are ignoring "laws of nature." Except, factory farming is the farthest thing from "natural" and I think it's important to emphasize this misconception rather than just saying animal consumption is immoral altogether.
Bentham's Bulldog wrote: "Those of us who remain complicit in this [animal abuse] are doing something seriously morally wrong, and should cease immediately. "
May I suggest that you spend some space on your blog advocating in favor of veganism? Your articles strike me as being a bit like impassioned screeds against scurvy with nary a mention that eating citrus fruits can cure it.
I've been vegan for over 20 years now, and it's much easier than most people assume. It's also good for the environment and is much better than the standard American diet (appropriately abbreviated as SAD).
I don't approve of eating free-range chickens or pasture-fed cows or whatever. There's no such thing as humane animal products. Eat vegan, and you don't need to worry about chicks being ground up alive or whatever.
This article does that.
I don't see any explicit mention of veganism and how easy it is to adopt that way of living (and the benefits of veganism aside from animal-related issues). What you did write is actually counterproductive, I think: "Maybe there’s an ethical way to eat animals." There isn't.
"smell. But then so too is it evil to gas pigs to death because you like the taste—particularly when you don’t need to. You don’t have to eat animal products—avoiding them is probably better for your health"
I've written against eating from humane farms elsewhere, but I think you should start with the uncontroversial position before moving on to the more controversial one.
OK, I stand corrected, at least partly. But the majority of your writing about animals focuses much more on the problem rather than on the simple solution that individuals can adopt.
What are the best animal charities to give to?
Also, how about putting various animal welfare measures on the ballot in various US states? And also pushing legal scholars to help redefine personhood in such a way that it includes non-human animals as well?
correct & good. what do you think about this argument in favor of humane husbandry?
the lives of non-human animals have some positive value. i.e. their existence is ceteris paribus good. plausibly this value scales with some feature of the animal (neuron count/synaptic density, degree of cortical folding, & etc.)
humane husbandry allows for the existence of more animals than would otherwise exist. they would not exist without the demand for them & the demand comes from their meat. this implies that eating the meat of animals raised well is not neutral, it is good. it will cause more of them to exist & live flourishing lives in their context.
this avoids the main problem of factory farming, which is suffering. it does result in many killings, but the problem with killings is that they're rights violations & plausibly non-human animals lack those.
https://direct.mit.edu/ajle/article/doi/10.1162/ajle_a_00038/112645/IF-WE-DIDN-T-EAT-THEM-THEY-WOULDN-T-EXIST-The
Great post and the audio made this 10x better - especially given the emotional nature of the subject. Is this the plan for future posts?
Probably not.