I hold the position that DeGrazia’s arguments on factory farms are convincing and his views on family farms are partly convincing. I am unconvinced by his scale of ethics, and his opinion that eating meat is unnecessary for human life and health. DeGrazia states that ‘you do not need to be strongly in favour of animal protection in order to embrace moral vegetarianism, you just need to have a reasonable view of their moral status’. I agree, but the strong thesis determines that if you have a reasonable view of animal’s moral status, you are morally obliged to not eat meat from either type of farm. Instead, of rejecting DeGrazia’s views, I argue in favour of an alternative approach where it is acceptable to be selfish, whilst being an advocate for vegetarianism/veganism. Consuming meat is undeniably selfish. I will never be able to communicate my point of view properly unless I recognise that the killing of any sentient being, whether done humanely or not, is wrong on all levels.
DeGrazia states that we are morally required to be vegetarians if we have access to non-animal products. Yet, I have access to non-animal foods, and I choose not to eat it because it is not as easy (for me personally) as concocting a recipe from meat alternatives. I am a student; I want quick, easy meals that I am 100% certain will give me an adequate amount of protein. I cannot be bothered to adopt a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle where I am required to think about the nutrition I am receiving from my meals (disclaimer: although some argue that red meat in particular is bad for you). That being said, this does not mean that I am not sympathetic or aware of where my meat has come from. Any moral human being will agree that factory farms are barbaric, which is why I will never buy my meat from there, and will purchase free range products. In my opinion, family farmed animals are the lesser of two evils.
In order to understand DeGrazia’s arguments for not consuming meat from either farm type, we must first understand the scale he works by. He splits meat consumers into: Equal-Consideration views, Unequal-Consideration views and No Consideration views. DeGrazia discusses this further with McMahan’s ‘Two-tier theory’ and the ‘Sliding- scale model’. Here, I suggest a flaw. Two-tiered theory is when human beings have a ‘higher moral status’, though still giving some moral status to animals. Whilst I would be more inclined to favour this idea, to me, it is still objectively wrong. You are still killing the animal in the end, therefore how is one justified in giving the animal even a little bit of moral status? We either accept that we are ‘technically’ selfish and (in my case) empathetic murderers or we give them their moral status and do not eat them. A lot rests on that single word ‘moral’. I reach a contradiction in my views. ‘You do not need to be strongly in favour of animal protection in order to embrace moral vegetarianism, you just need to have a reasonable view of their moral status’ I have a problem with using the term ‘moral status’, as it implies respect- we do not kill those that we have respect for. Instead, I propose a concept whereby you feel compassion for the animal and want it to go through the most minimal amount of suffering possible (favouring family farms). I am able to identify, as a ‘serial killer’ with empathy, and I am at least aware of the atrocities of the meat industry, unlike others.
That being said, I cannot refute that animals do have some form of moral status, despite the fact that they are killed for my benefit, and therefore my newly formed argument fits the situation. So I must reject the mention of human centred, Kantian ethics, which states that animals have no moral status. Although Kant upheld that we must not simply treat animals how we would like, he still believed animals were mere things we could permissibly use as ‘means to our ends’. Just because I eat the meat provided to me does not mean I condone any forms of cruelty to the animals or as Kant explains it, the use of them as tools. I do not deny their equal right to life (although some say that I do, due to the fact that I am buying into the meat industry).
Following my point on compassion, I completely agree with DeGrazia’s view that factory farms are wrong. If I am to accept that I am selfish hereby rejecting their moral status, and the animal is killed for my own benefit, then what I consume will always come from a family, free-range farm, and not a factory farm. I agree that people who have readily available alternatives have a moral obligation to avoid factory farms, however I reject the stronger thesis to also avoid family farms.
Occasionally disregarding a right is the only way to achieve some immense good, or avoid enormous catastrophe. Many people who believe in rights say that, there are limits to respect for rights, and would use this point against factory farming with respect to the mass loss of jobs and starvation of poorer individuals etc. Despite this, I am in favour of factory farms closing, and family farms becoming more prominent. With the absence of these factory farms, demand for family farms would increase and could therefore affect my own lifestyle in terms of price of products and the nutritional value (I believe) I receive from meats. I would also have to start looking for alternatives. In a way, the factory farms are the reason I can keep attuned to my own ethical beliefs in buying from family farms (the lesser of two evils). If family farms were the only type in existence perhaps meat consumption would be only at a level where it is necessary for our survival, not just because it tastes nice. I agree that as a general rule we ought to ‘make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support to institutions that cause extensive, unnecessary harm’, and whilst it can be said family farms still cause a degree of harm- it is the best option, in line with my ethics, if I wish to continue my selfish lifestyle.
So, the strong thesis of DeGrazia’s argument is against family farms. Although more humane than factory farming, cattle still undergo dehorning, castration and branding etc- still causing harm. Again, I emphasise that this type of farming is in fact the lesser of two evils. Although some idealists would like to believe otherwise, we cannot abolish the meat industry completely, and so these undergoing’s are a necessity, and it is a sad truth we meat-eaters must accept if it is the lifestyle we want to lead.
An argument that is stated here is that death can harm an animal in the fact that it deprives it of the valuable opportunities of its future. However, if one were to boycott all farms, there would be loss of demand for meat, and therefore animals that would have had worthwhile lives would not have come into existence in the first place. The response to this is we are under no obligation to bring anything into existence and we do it if we assume that their life is worth living. Once a sentient being is brought into existence, we are under obligation to not cause them harm, as it is wrong to give life knowing that life will be miserable. ‘The expectation that a person’s life would not be worth living does provide a moral reason not to cause that person to exist’. This is true.
However, a life can be worth living, even if it does have a shorter lifespan. Family farms at least attempt to make the animals life worth living, even if it is short-lived and working towards an end (death). We as humans have a time limit, and death can await us at any point. We could also have a poor quality of life and die young, and an animal on a free-range farm could be intrinsically happy in its own right. And the animal would never have had this life in the first place, unless raised and killed for meat; therefore a slither of good can come from what is, overall, a universal wrong.
To conclude, I hope that I have to the best of my ability, provided some ethical defence of meat eating, by accepting DeGrazia’s moral obligation to avoid meat from factory farms. Whilst I believe that a vegetarian or even vegan lifestyle is the morally correct thing to do, as a creature put on this planet to be a survivor, I will always put my own selfish needs ahead of those I am eating, and the closest I can stay to being ‘moral’ is ensuring that my meat did not ensure overly terrible suffering.