There has been much debate about the moral status and proper treatment of the an

There has been much debate about the moral status and proper treatment of the animals that many people eat, e.g., pigs, cows, chickens, turkeys, etc. Some claim that food animals have significant moral status and in turn deserve decent treatment from birth to the moment of death. Others claim that food animals have minimal to no moral status and in turn can be treated most any way humans might want. Defenses for these claims appear within articles by Regan, Cohen, and Norcross.
Regan argues that all living beings (humans and non-humans) are ‘experiencing subjects of a life’, each has an awareness, life, expectations, well being, etc., that matter to it. All experiencing subjects of a life have a form of inherent value. All inherently valuable beings deserve respectful and decent treatment. Many current “factory” farming practices fail to demonstrate the proper amount of respect and decent treatment to our food animals, many food animals are abused and treated as mere means to human ends. Thus, many current factory farming practices are immoral and should be changed.
Conversely, Cohen argues that nonhuman animals lack the mental abilities necessary to understand and to participate in human morality and moral decision making. Humans are not morally required to respect or decently treat beings that lack such mental abilities, it’s morally okay to treat these beings as mere means to human ends. Thus, regardless of how current “factory” farming practices disrespect and/or mistreat food animals, there’s no cause for moral concern. That is, factory practices are not necessarily immoral and likely don’t need to be changed.
Norcross offers an analogy between the behavior of a person (Fred) that tortures puppies for mere gustatory pleasure and the meat purchasing behavior of average grocery store shoppers. He contends that if we think that Fred’s behavior is morally terrible, then we are likewise committed to accepting that the behavior of average shoppers purchasing meat products is terrible as well. Essentially, average meat eaters and shoppers directly share in any and all moral shame and blame for the poor and disrespectful treatment of the animals they are purchasing and eating.
Consequentialist style arguments can be used to support either side of this debate. It all depends on whether or not the respectful/decent or disrespectful/indecent treatment of food animals results in the better overall consequences for the majority of —beings (human and nonhuman)— affected/effected by them. If the majority of beings are made better off by the mistreatment of food animals, then a consequentialist would be committed to saying that mistreatment is morally okay. If the majority of beings are made better off by decent treatment of food animals, then a consequentialist would be committed to saying that decent treatment is the morally better course of action. Either way, for consequentialists, the morality/immorality of current “factory” practices will be decided by how the consequences of such positively or negatively impact the majority of beings affected/effected by them.
This week’s questions:
1) Does the better or worse treatment of food animals, e.g., pigs, cows, chickens, etc., seem to morally matter? That is, does it seem to morally matter whether or not pigs, cows, etc., must, e.g., endure a life of near constant foot pain, infections, etc., due to being forced to live and walk on concrete/metal floors? Or, that pigs, cows, etc., must endure a life of near constant overheating and discomfort due to overcrowding, etc.? Your reasoning?
2) Do you buy Regan’s or Cohen’s reasoning? That is, might it be immoral to use food animals as a mere means to humans ends due to their possession of a form of inherent value? Or, might it be morally okay to use food animals as mere means to human ends due to their lack of certain mental abilities? Your reasoning?
3) Do you buy Norcross’ argument-by-analogy and his contention that the purchasing behaviors of average meat eaters and grocery store shoppers are morally responsible for how food animals are treated/mistreated prior to arriving at grocery stores? That is, are those that buy “factory” produced meat products (around 95 to 97% of all meat products) at least partially morally responsible for how the animals were treated prior to arriving at the store? Your reasoning?
4) If one considers the mistreatment of food animals to be a significant moral problem, then what needs to be changed? And, more importantly, precisely who is responsible for making such changes happen? The government? You (the average shopper)? Etc. Might there be some merit to the idea that more people should leave their urban jobs/career paths to become smaller-scale farmers? Your reasoning?