I think the treatment and well-being of food animals such as pigs, cows, and chi

I think the treatment and well-being of food animals such as pigs, cows, and chickens most definitely matters in a moral sense. These animals have as much capacity for social domestication as we consider cats and dogs having, which is evident by the multitudes of Americans who keep rescued cows and pigs as pets, or who keep chickens on their property and care for them as members of the family. Humans can make a connection with almost anything, and the potential for social behavior and affection displayed by many food animals makes it very difficult to argue that treating them badly and as a mere means to a human end is a moral thing to do. They experience pain, sadness, discomfort, and loss the same way humans do, and if we insist on continuing to include these animals in a typical diet (or at least one that many people partake in), then the least we can do for them is give them a nice life prior to the slaughter. From the moment these animals step into the world, their sole fate is to be one day killed and eaten- does morality not require at least some degree of kindness towards these sentient creatures to the extent that we give them a comfortable and pleasant life until that fateful day? I think it does, and any person who would not want to live a starved and painful life in an overcrowded facility with no connection to nature is likely to agree with me.
I buy into Regan’s reasoning as I do not believe that degree of mental capabilities determines the level of kindness and respect that a being deserves in its life. Cohen’s reasoning immediately makes me wonder how he feels about members of our society who live with a disability or condition that causes them to function on a lower mental or physical level. These people are still people, they still feel things, and they still know if they are being treated badly. The same goes for food animals who may not be able to do math problems or drive a car but still have a capacity for love, happiness, comfort, family, and the antitheses of those pleasant concepts. The wellbeing of food animals is valuable because they are the ones who will feel all of the pain and consequences of mistreatment and an inhumane system, and I think it goes against all forms of morality to argue that their real feelings and experiences do not matter just because they aren’t humans.
I do think that Norcross’s analogy is accurate in claiming that buyers of factory-produced meat products are partially morally responsible for the mistreatment and conditions of those animals during their lives. The buyers may not have been the ones to start the practice, but because they support it by purchasing the products, the factories will continue to treat their food animals badly until some other factor steps in. It’s simple boycott philosophy: if the business makes profit off of immoral behavior, the immoral behavior will continue until it stops producing a profit.
It’s probably a team effort as far as making the switch to moral and sustainable farming practices goes. We as consumers can make a difference by refusing to buy factory-made meat products from companies who mistreated their animals, but this has to be a large-scale agreement among consumers or it will not have much of an impact. The government is definitely a major player as it alone has the power to set limits and standards for the treatment of food animals in the US and countries to which American food companies outsource their factories and products. This should be a pressing issue to the federal government in my opinion as it concerns the health and wellbeing of not only the food animals but of the people eating them, as well as the natural environment. There probably is some merit to the idea of individual citizens leaving behind their urban paths to become small-scale farmers, but that kind of action isn’t necessary in order for us all to contribute to a slightly more healthy and moral world. It’s more of a nice thing to do if that’s the individual’s cup of tea.