Is animal farming always wrong?

[Graeme M]

I haven't found a decent discussion on this topic before, though perhaps I haven't looked hard enough.

The modern world is much transformed by human activity and one major aspect to this is how animal farming has become a major part of the way ecologies operate. Here in Australia, many centuries of inappropriate farming have substantially degraded the landscape however new techniques such as "regenerative" farming promise to address those problems. However, the concern I have is more to the effect about what happens in the absence of animal farming, were that to eventuate.

If we were to abandon range type farming (ie extensive operations rather than intensive indoor practices) several things might unfold. One is that the land might be left to rewild, but in the absence of some species that have since been lost, and the presence of many new species, the land may become rather less than ecologically productive. It may become just a mess of wild thickets and so on with very little real diversity. Alternatively, it may become very fecund with many species living and interacting. Another possibility is that the land is lost to urban development, farming, wind farms, dams, whatever or even be used for crops.

When we farm animals, we can do so in ways that maximise the effective use of the land while maximising (in the context) the ecological benefits of the land. Is it better to cover the land in crops, or to mine the lnd, or build houses on it, rather than to farm animals in ways that maximise benefits to all?

On the other hand, when thinking about rewilding, if our concern is to reduce suffering, we need to face the fact that 100 acres of wild land will contain a lot of wild animal suffering. 100 acres of farmed animals will probably have rather less suffering, and we can also work to reduce the suffering by the farmed animals. In fact, it might be the case that a well managed farm is a net benefit in terms of pain and suffering.

With these thoughts in mind, is animal farming always wrong?

 

[silva]

First I'd like you to explain your thoughts here:

"On the other hand, when thinking about rewilding, if our concern is to reduce suffering, we need to face the fact that 100 acres of wild land will contain a lot of wild animal suffering. 100 acres of farmed animals will probably have rather less suffering, and we can also work to reduce the suffering by the farmed animals. In fact, it might be the case that a well managed farm is a net benefit in terms of pain and suffering."

 

[Graeme M]

Nature is inherently unpleasant - quite a few writers have suggested that on balance, most wild animals live unpleasant lives. There are even those who believe we have a moral obligation to reduce wild animal suffering. While many farmed animals experience unpleasant conditions, it is quite possible to farm animals who enjoy a relatively pleasant life. On top of that, farmers can, and do, devote considerable time and resources to ensuring high welfare for their animals. If we have a farm of some size on which we run cattle, well cared for with plentiful access to food, water and health care, it is reasonable to presume those animals will experience less pain and suffering than the equivalent number of wild animals who might live there if the farm did not exist. Very possibly, there would be even more wild animals in that area in that case which could swing the scales even further in favour of farming..

Simply put, we can do more to alleviate animal pain and suffering by farming animals in a particular area than leaving it to nature.

 

[Chryssie]

Farms are a business which means they have to make money by selling the farm animals to slaughter for meat or in the case of dairy, the milk is sold. How is that alleviating pain and suffering? The cattle are raised to be killed. I can't see anything good about that. And don't forget the cruelty in dairy farming when the newborn calves are taken from their mothers so the farmer can sell the milk she produces.

 

[Emma JC]

I just read the following article regarding a cow slaughterhouse in Alberta - it is very upsetting both for the animals and for the people that have to work there. There is no justification for this. We don't need it, it is cruel and inhumane. The prairies (where Alberta is located) is an excellent place to grow grains and soys and every other crop that we can eat and feed the world with. It doesn't matter if a cow has a happy life on a pasture on a farm or is raised in a feedlot, eventually they all end up slaughtered with a bolt to the head on a slaughterhouse floor and processed by the poorer more desperate part of our "civilization".

Emma JC

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/cargill-covid19-outbreak

 

[Emma JC]

and I just saw this article in the Financial Times...






Plant-based meat substitutes could soon compete with real beef in price as coronavirus closes processing plants and disrupts food supply chains...

Plant-based burgers to compete with real meat prices

There really is no excuse to continue to kill animals for food.

Emma JC

 

[David3]

I haven't found a decent discussion on this topic before, though perhaps I haven't looked hard enough.

The modern world is much transformed by human activity and one major aspect to this is how animal farming has become a major part of the way ecologies operate. Here in Australia, many centuries of inappropriate farming have substantially degraded the landscape however new techniques such as "regenerative" farming promise to address those problems. However, the concern I have is more to the effect about what happens in the absence of animal farming, were that to eventuate.

If we were to abandon range type farming (ie extensive operations rather than intensive indoor practices) several things might unfold. One is that the land might be left to rewild, but in the absence of some species that have since been lost, and the presence of many new species, the land may become rather less than ecologically productive. It may become just a mess of wild thickets and so on with very little real diversity. Alternatively, it may become very fecund with many species living and interacting. Another possibility is that the land is lost to urban development, farming, wind farms, dams, whatever or even be used for crops.

When we farm animals, we can do so in ways that maximise the effective use of the land while maximising (in the context) the ecological benefits of the land. Is it better to cover the land in crops, or to mine the lnd, or build houses on it, rather than to farm animals in ways that maximise benefits to all?

On the other hand, when thinking about rewilding, if our concern is to reduce suffering, we need to face the fact that 100 acres of wild land will contain a lot of wild animal suffering. 100 acres of farmed animals will probably have rather less suffering, and we can also work to reduce the suffering by the farmed animals. In fact, it might be the case that a well managed farm is a net benefit in terms of pain and suffering.

With these thoughts in mind, is animal farming always wrong?

Animal agriculture involves killing of wild animals that prey on domestic animals. Example: Killing of wolves to prevent predation of cows.

 

[Lou]

When I was in High School and studying for the SATs, I was taught a tip. Correct multiple choice answers that start with "always" or "never" are almost always wrong.

So I won't say that animal farming is always wrong.

I can actually think of a few exceptions. For instance, in third world countries, a subsistence farmer may keep chickens or a goat or a sheep or a beehive. The eggs, the goat's milk, the sheep's wool, or the bee's honey can make a real difference in the family's well being.

In some arid grasslands, the land can not be farmed. A family might keep some cattle or goats that can live off the land and provide income for the family.

We might argue about whether or not this is an otpimum set up but I wouldn't classify that kind of animal farming as wrong.

 

[Graeme M]

It is obvious that farming is a business and involves killing animals. The question is, can we farm animals in ways that minimise pain and suffering while also leading to less pain and suffering overall? Veganism asks us to make choices that reduce pain and suffering. Yes, I know we could get into animal rights, and some interpretations of veganism aren't concerned with pain and suffering, but for many of us I think the issue is the unpleasantness of lives.

Applying that flavour of vegan ethics in everyday life means making choices that minimise pain and suffering where possible. It is possible that leaving land to nature causes far more pain and suffering than farming, even when the farmed animals are killed and some predators are killed. The fundamental distinction is that all animal lives involve some degree of suffering, and I think it can be argued that for wild animals this is more often the case than not. Wild nature is on balance mostly suffering. One way we CAN make a difference is to farm animals and do so well. THOSE animals will experience less pain and suffering than wild animals and it may be that fewer wild animals suffer for us to have free range animal farms. And while farmers may take steps to control predators, vegan ethics could inform how we do that to minimise harm.

Maybe animal farming isn't always wrong.

 

[Luis Halson]

No way it is always wrong! The thing about farms (and veganism) is that animals are not treated well in most (99.9%) of farms. Even in "humane" farms, there are usually still slaughters or other welfare violations, which is why eating animal products is unethical. However in the 0.01% that do truly respect animal welfare e.g. if they never ever send animals to slaughter, then of course it is ethical to eat products from these farms!

BTW, abolitionist vegans would disagree. They see animal farming as inherently unethical because we do not have the right to exploit animals for food.

 

[Graeme M]

Luis, of course. Abolitionists would disagree by definition, so we clearly aren't talking to them in this discussion. You are somewhat missing my point. Vegan ethics are about making choices that minimise pain and suffering (as long as you aren't an abolitionist). My point is that it is possible that the choice that most minimises pain and suffering would be a vegan animal farming system, because to abandon farms to nature may be far worse. The case is not one of the natural world being there, because it isn't, we replaced it with the animal farm. So the choice to close a farm and let it rewild is our doing, and all the suffering that entails is due to that choice.

 

[silva]

It is obvious that farming is a business and involves killing animals. The question is, can we farm animals in ways that minimise pain and suffering while also leading to less pain and suffering overall? Veganism asks us to make choices that reduce pain and suffering. Yes, I know we could get into animal rights, and some interpretations of veganism aren't concerned with pain and suffering, but for many of us I think the issue is the unpleasantness of lives.

Applying that flavour of vegan ethics in everyday life means making choices that minimise pain and suffering where possible. It is possible that leaving land to nature causes far more pain and suffering than farming, even when the farmed animals are killed and some predators are killed. The fundamental distinction is that all animal lives involve some degree of suffering, and I think it can be argued that for wild animals this is more often the case than not. Wild nature is on balance mostly suffering. One way we CAN make a difference is to farm animals and do so well. THOSE animals will experience less pain and suffering than wild animals and it may be that fewer wild animals suffer for us to have free range animal farms. And while farmers may take steps to control predators, vegan ethics could inform how we do that to minimise harm.

Maybe animal farming isn't always wrong.

Oh I get you! Like how rich white people go to other countries and decide they should change things, because they see how bad the people live, and don't believe in their god, and while they're at it, they may as well take their stuff as compensation for making things so much better for them
Oh course we really don't need to look beyond our own country to see how the wealthy control the lives of the people without generational wealth, and privilege.
Animal farming is animal slavery, nothing else. if you want to provide the animals that are now on farms you would turn them to sanctuaries, the land eventually can go back to other farming, or something else. No one infers that happens overnight.
Your argument is that of a slave owner

 

[Poppy]

It is obvious that farming is a business and involves killing animals. The question is, can we farm animals in ways that minimise pain and suffering while also leading to less pain and suffering overall? Veganism asks us to make choices that reduce pain and suffering. Yes, I know we could get into animal rights, and some interpretations of veganism aren't concerned with pain and suffering, but for many of us I think the issue is the unpleasantness of lives.

Applying that flavour of vegan ethics in everyday life means making choices that minimise pain and suffering where possible. It is possible that leaving land to nature causes far more pain and suffering than farming, even when the farmed animals are killed and some predators are killed. The fundamental distinction is that all animal lives involve some degree of suffering, and I think it can be argued that for wild animals this is more often the case than not. Wild nature is on balance mostly suffering. One way we CAN make a difference is to farm animals and do so well. THOSE animals will experience less pain and suffering than wild animals and it may be that fewer wild animals suffer for us to have free range animal farms. And while farmers may take steps to control predators, vegan ethics could inform how we do that to minimise harm.

Maybe animal farming isn't always wrong.

Buddhism tells us that life is suffering. So it's kind of hard to escape.

The thing is, we really don't even need to farm animals. It's completely possible to live lives of abundance, health and joy while not consuming animal products. Is it possible to eat a plant-based vegan diet without killing any animal or insect in the process of farming vegetation? No. But living without eating beef, pork, chicken, rabbit, lamb, sheep, goat, fish, shellfish, dog, bat, snake, etc…is easy, and would save billions and billions of animals from horrible lives and fates.

The attempt to minimize pain and suffering would best be accomplished by not eating the animals in the first place, then animals wouldn't be born into lives of misery only to be mercilessly slaughtered far before their natural life would end.

 

[David3]

In theology, this topic is called the "Problem of Evil": Problem of evil - Wikipedia . People of faith have been trying to reconcile this for thousands of years.
.

 

[David3]

"As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Starfleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes introducing superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Starfleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship, unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation."

Patrick Stewart was 47 years old at the time of this episode! Younger than me.
.

 

[Graeme M]

Yes, I realise that a more complete formulation of veganism is often regarded as rejecting the commodity status of animals, so yes, agreed, farming is always wrong if we believe that owning animals is wrong. However, if veganism is more aimed at a pragmatic level (ie we accept that animal ownership of some degree is acceptable, at least in the shorter term) there can surely be only one sound reason for making vegan choices and that is to avoid causing suffering. Otherwise veganism becomes a somewhat empty and arbitrary claim. That is, why preclude the use of animals but authorise the use of plants and fungi? What is the distinction that counts - it has to be some kind of sentience and by extension the capacity to suffer.

On that kind of view, we may accept that wherever possible we should choose both not to exploit animals nor to cause them pain and suffering. Nonetheless, in the world we have for now, animal farming remains an approved activity. Business as usual is clearly wrong. Yet my case is that the farthest alternative - no animal farming - might also be wrong in the world we have, because that may have significant negative ecological impacts and increase the pain and suffering. It would be hard to argue that animals raised in free range conditions with high welfare are likely to suffer more than wild animals and we have more scope to encourage reductions in pain and suffering with farmed animals than with wild animals.

Similarly, it is likely to be the case that without considerable effort, growing crops for all food would also entail great suffering, especially if we consider insects, reptiles and amphibians. Consider the impacts on insects and birds in Europe. At some point, there might be reached an equilibrium at which the balance between crop farming and free range farming achieves the least net suffering.

 

[Poppy]

Simple. Avoiding "causal suffering" is best achieved by not growing the "product" destined to suffer, especially since we do not need them. Sure, you can go on and on about sentience, about how raising vegetables will cause insects and rodents to die, and all that's true (actually the vast majority of the crops we raise today go to feed the animals we intend to butcher, so a change to agriculture for humans would likely decrease the insects and rodents killed in the processes well). But the fact is that by not consuming animal products (those produced by the massive animal agriculture and micro designer facilities (free range eggs, farm to table, etc)), literally billions of animals will be spared miserable lives and horrific slaughter. While animal farming might be an "approved" activity (???) it does not need to continue. The planet will have a much healthier equilibrium without the massive destruction animal agriculture imposes on its limited resources.

 

[Freedeer]

Yes, I realise that a more complete formulation of veganism is often regarded as rejecting the commodity status of animals, so yes, agreed, farming is always wrong if we believe that owning animals is wrong. However, if veganism is more aimed at a pragmatic level (ie we accept that animal ownership of some degree is acceptable, at least in the shorter term) there can surely be only one sound reason for making vegan choices and that is to avoid causing suffering. Otherwise veganism becomes a somewhat empty and arbitrary claim. That is, why preclude the use of animals but authorise the use of plants and fungi? What is the distinction that counts - it has to be some kind of sentience and by extension the capacity to suffer.

On that kind of view, we may accept that wherever possible we should choose both not to exploit animals nor to cause them pain and suffering. Nonetheless, in the world we have for now, animal farming remains an approved activity. Business as usual is clearly wrong. Yet my case is that the farthest alternative - no animal farming - might also be wrong in the world we have, because that may have significant negative ecological impacts and increase the pain and suffering. It would be hard to argue that animals raised in free range conditions with high welfare are likely to suffer more than wild animals and we have more scope to encourage reductions in pain and suffering with farmed animals than with wild animals.

Similarly, it is likely to be the case that without considerable effort, growing crops for all food would also entail great suffering, especially if we consider insects, reptiles and amphibians. Consider the impacts on insects and birds in Europe. At some point, there might be reached an equilibrium at which the balance between crop farming and free range farming achieves the least net suffering.

Graeme M, The basic vegan principal states that "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." In other words, any form of animal exploitation is immoral. Aside from religious beliefs, the golden rule applies here: if we (human animals) would not like to be "factory farmed" then we should not do it to others. This reminds me of a discussion I read online on "human slaughter" in which one side argued that would it be acceptable to kill animals as long as we do it "humanly". In my opinion, " human slaughter" is a contradiction in term. We are still taking a sentient being's life no matter how it is done. This like saying, we going to kill animals kindly. Your argument stands in stark opposition to the essence of ethical vegan principals. The meat and dairy industries would certainly embrace your view and create a new kind of animal farming calling it "vegan factory farming".

 

[PTree15]

Graeme M, this sounds like a roundabout way to justify/support so-called "happy meat." In the end, humans are ending the life of another being before its natural cycle for food, and vegans are against that.

 

[nobody]

Yet my case is that the farthest alternative - no animal farming - might also be wrong in the world we have, because that may have significant negative ecological impacts and increase the pain and suffering.

You are advocating going for ill gotten gains, so here is something else that would fall into that category:

For a human being, life after age 70 is likely to contain a lot of suffering from arthritis, alzheimer's, cancer, etc., so if it were socially acceptable, would you advocate murdering 70 year olds in their sleep in order to spare them the suffering they would endure if they were to continue living?

I wouldn't, because it isn't enough to choose the path that leads to the least suffering, there also needs to be justice in the actions that lead to the reduction in suffering.

To take this to the maxinum degree, the greatest reduction in suffering would result from removing the planet's biosphere so that nothing can live and suffer here, so if you had the ability to remove it, would you? Doing so would be the same as murdering 7. 5 billion people and slaughtering countless animals, which is not right, even if it would prevent the most suffering.