Reply to the Argument from Animal Suffering

From guest blogger, Haley:

The Argument from Animal Suffering is that animal agriculture causes a very large amount of suffering. In this argument I agree that animals feel pain and they are a lot smarter than people give them credit for. As humans we need to be aware of how much pain we put animals through and be cautious of some of our practices involving our animals. But does that mean farming and agriculture is a bad thing and immoral? I don’t believe so. If we put our best efforts in and do all we can to be humane and reduce pain, then farming and agriculture is a moral practice.

I also don’t believe that all of what we see from CAFOs is true information. There are USDA regulations out there to keep these practices from occurring. Does this mean that farms can still get away with mistreatment of animals? Honestly speaking, yes they can. Some farms can get away with flying under the radar but that also doesn’t mean they should. For today’s society, regulations are pretty strong but they can always be stronger, it will always be that way. It is good to keep in mind though that some of what people put out about these farms is incorrect information and can be taken out of context. When working on a beef or dairy farm, the farmers are working with animals that are 1,000 plus pounds. If they aren’t careful they can sometimes be hurt and being careful sometimes means being forceful. Say if one of those 1,000 plus pound animals is standing on your foot, (speaking from experience) it can really hurt regardless of what footwear you’re wearing. In this situation you have to remain calm so you don’t scare the animal but you also have to get them off, which can mean being forceful. Cattle are also very sensitive to their surroundings which means when you move them they are very alert to the change that is going on and they can be very stubborn. To get this animal moving you may need to give them tap on the rear. It’s not harming them, it’s just to get the job done.

I disagree with premise three of the argument as well: there is no adequate reason for animal agriculture. The agriculture industry as whole is feeding the entire world. We have the resources, people, animals and crops to do it so we should stick with it. What’s more is if we stopped animal agriculture the farmers, the people who work in processing plants, the people who transport the animals and meat will be out of a job. The job loss and the loss of revenue from having meat on the market would also effect economies as well. Agriculture is a large industry worldwide and it’s not fair to the workforce to put them out of job. For some farmers, it is a multigenerational family tradition and their family’s life as well as their own life put into work. Why should they have to lose all they put in?  Instead, we should do our part to learn more about how food gets to our plates and we should also thank farmers for what they do.

Thoughts on Dive!

From guest blogger, Haley:

In response to Dive, I agree that as a society we need to do more to reduce waste. We are a very wasteful society and this is a true fact. Although, I don’t know if I would necessarily dive through a dumpster for my meals to make a point.

When I was showing steers, one of the local businesses that I would approach to come bid on my animal was Lenienkugal’s. I actually got to know Jake and his wife Peg pretty well over the years. After Jake bought my steer for the first time I asked him what his plans were for the meat he had purchased. He told me that there was no way him and his wife could get though that much. So after the meat was processed Jake and Peg would go through it all and pick out what meat they wanted to keep. Afterwards they would donate the rest to local food pantries so they would have fresh meat to give to people. I see this as an example of smart consumerism and this is what a lot of us need to be doing. They realized that they didn’t need it all and donated the rest to the needy.

In Dive when they brought up World War II it reminded me of a story my high school economics teacher told me. His family went over to his mother’s house to help clean and they were going through a few cupboards where they found dog food and a few other things squirreled away. He explained it to us like this: she grew up in the depression era which meant you couldn’t be wasteful and once you had a little economic comfort you still hid stuff and prepared just in case the depression came back again. Society was less wasteful during World War II because the Great Depression just ended and those people knew what it was like to have nothing so they took advantage of every meal. That meant clean plates all around the table and in some cases hiding away extra food just in case a depression hit again. As time moved on and the economy got better people got lazier with clean plates and finishing an entire meal.  Society got away from the “we need to take care of each other and help one another” views of the 40’s and 50’s. Even today food pantries are struggling to get enough donations to help families that truly need it and we need to keep this in mind as we enter the holiday season.

Would I dive through a dumpster to get food for my table? Most likely not, unless it was absolutely necessary. I was raised and am still a firm believer in the fact we should use what we have before we get more.  I think what he and his friends are doing is interesting it just might not be in the best way. Instead of over stocking on things it would take him years to use up, he could be donating it instead. There are people out there in California that need it way more than him. Every week he could take two or three night’s worth of dumpster dives to a local homeless shelter or food pantry instead. He has way more than his family could ever need even though they are being thoughtful with it and freezing it. He also could afford to go grocery shopping but instead he essentially steals from the trash. I don’t sees this as the right thing to do either but if this is what he likes to do and sees it as what he should be doing, then who am I to say he is wrong or shouldn’t do it. 

Another Argument for Ethical Vegetarianism

* From guest blogger, Arden.*

One argument on behalf of Ethical Vegetarianism that I find to be particularly weak is the argument from the sexual politics of eating meat. This argument states that there is a problematic relationship between men and women in Western and non-Western cultures, in which men are empowered over women. It further explains that there is a cultural connection between the conception of manliness and meat eating that asserts, expresses, embodies, and helps perpetuate this problematic relationship and the associated cultural practices that the relationship creates. Therefore, because eating meat contributes to this problematic relationship, we ought not to adopt a non-meat diet.

I whole-heartedly agree with the argument represented above, in that I believe that we do live in a patriarchal society in which women are routinely objectified, subjected to sexism and gender discrimination, and placed into problematic gender roles, expectations, stereotypes, and unrealistic ideals. However, the reason why I think that this argument is weak is because it is hard to say, much less prove, that not eating meat could affect such a large social concern. I agree with the fact that there is a cultural connection between manliness and eating meat, but I believe that it plays a very minute role in contributing to sexism and sexual discrimination as a whole. I also think that making the claim that people ought to not eat meat, in order to discourage gender inequality, is a fairly radical claim that could have an equally radical counterpart that would argue that one ought to eat even more meat in order to challenge these stereotypes. Therefore, I think that it is important for individuals to challenge the association between masculinity, power, and strength to eating meat, however, I have trouble justifying the claim that we are morally obligated, or ought to adopt a non-meat diet in order to discourage seuxual and gender inequality overall. 

On The Animal Welfare Argument for Vegetarianism

* From guest blogger, Arden*

I found one objection to the argument from animal welfare to be quite interesting because it addresses the fact that the argument has a limited scope, and only shows that certain types of agricultural practices are ethically problematic.

The argument focuses particularly on industrialized farming, and does not discuss traditional herding, pasturing, or free-range animal agriculture. The argument states that we ought not eat meat in consideration to the large amount of suffering that it creates, however these practices mentioned above can be done in ways that are extremely considerate of animal welfare. In addition to these alternative practices of animal agriculture, the argument from animal welfare does not apply to hunting that is done in ways that minimize animal suffering or  to individuals who do not have easy access to nutritionally adequate non-meat diets.

I think that this displays an inconsistency in the animal welfare argument because it does not warrant that people ought not eat meat produced agriculturally. Instead, I believe that it validates the conclusion that people ought not eat meat produced by factory farms or Concentrated Feeding Operations. 

An Argument for Ethical Vegetarianism

* From guest blogger, Arden.*

One argument that supports Ethical Vegetarianism is made on the behalf of animal welfare. Two 

premises of this argument assert that animal agriculture results in large amounts of suffering, and because we ought not cause suffering to others for no apparent reason, we ought to adopt a non-meat diet.

This argument is primarily based on how animals are standardly treated in large-scale farming operations, especially concentrated feed operations (CAFOS), and emphasizes the empirical claim that animals are sentient creatures that have the capacity to suffer and feel pain. This claim is supported by evidence obtained through physiological and behavioral science, as well as evolutionary biology, that justifies that animals have the same underlying physiology- e.g the neurological system- and express the same behaviors as humans when they are in situations that cause pain. Sandler discusses how animals in CAFOS are deemed and treated as parts of an industrial process to produce the most meat possible for the lowest cost possible. These practices along with the high concentration of animals, results in animal suffering.

Causing such large amounts of animal suffering for no apparent reason is not morally permissible. Animals are not choosing to suffer in the same ways in which we do by going to the dentist or getting flu shots. They have no choice in the matter, and  rendered to an unnecessary amount of suffering under the oppressive environmental conditions that are created by concentrated feeding operations. Humans are the only individuals who benefit from animal agriculture. I believe that we ought to not eat meat, especially not any that is produced by an industrialized farm, considering the amount of suffering it causes for mere pleasure of consumption.

  

The Affordability of a Healthy, Vegetarian Diet

In my class yesterday, we discussed whether eating a healthy, vegetarian diet was financially possible for lower-income people in the U.S. I mentioned that there are a variety of legumes which are very high in protein (soy, lentils, etc.). These tend to be inexpensive relative to the cost of meat. A quick look online reveals that a pound of chicken, for example, costs about $1.50 and a pound of black beans costs about $1.12. It's worth noting that beans and legumes are not as high in calories, saturated fat, and other things which can have a negative impact to one's health.

But this doesn't answer the question at hand. Can a poor person in the U.S. afford to eat a healthy vegetarian diet? I think it's certainly difficult if not impossible to eat well on a very low income. To put things in context, the poverty line in the U.S. in 2014 was set at $23,850 for a family of four and the average family spends about 10% of their income on food. Though lower-income families likely spend a higher percentage than this, it seems that such families simply don't have sufficient resources to eat well--regardless of whether their diet includes meat. But the point I tried to make in class was that it's more expensive to eat meat than it is to eat no meat and eat vegetables, legumes, etc. instead. In addition, one can get a great deal of protein and other nutrients one needs to be healthy without eating meat.    

Readers of this blog might find this website and this one of interest.

WMU Grad Conference

The WMU Graduate Student Association of Philosophy is pleased to announce its 9th Annual Graduate Conference at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan on December 4-5, 2015. 

We are excited to have Helen Frowe (Stockholm) and Jonathan Schaffer (Rutgers) join us as our keynote speakers this year.

Submissions by graduate students in any field of philosophy are welcome, but special attention will be given to papers on the keynote speakers’ areas of specialization.  Please keep submissions to no more than 4000 words.  Submissions must be sent to philosophy.wmich@gmail.com.  Please include your name, affiliation, and paper title in the email, and please have your submission prepared for blind review by removing any identifying information from the body of the paper itself.  The deadline for submission is October 1, 2015.

Makinga a $1500 Sandwich

This guy made a sandwich completely from scratch (including the cheese and he made salt from ocean water). It took him six months and $1500 and I'm sure he learned a lot in the process. 

So, did it taste good? After his first bite, he said, "It's not bad. That's about it. Six months of my life... were not bad..."

Vertical Farming

We had an interesting discussion in my Food Ethics course today. Part of it turned to vertical farming and whether such agricultural techniques could be used as an alternative to contemporary agriculture and whether such farming could adequately feed the world.

Here's an interesting article about vertical farming that appeared in the NY Times. The author, Dickson Despommier, is a professor of public policy at Columbia who also has a book on the topic. He contends that vertical farming is a viable source of a tremendous amount of food, especially in urban areas. It seems (from a brief perusal of his book) that vertical farming isn't as input-intensive as we had said in class. In fact, he claims that it's a highly efficient way to farm. If readers of this blog have other resources related to this issue--especially those critical of vertical farming--please let me know.