Factory Farming is a pretty clumsy term to me at least, but popular with folk trying to evoke an associated image of a dirty industrial scene during the industrial revolution with all the associated images of exploitation. Of course it conveniently doesn't seem to include broad acre cropping. It doesn't include plantations including forestry. It doesn't seem to include other forms of intensive farming like 5 acres of greenhouses producing fruit or vegetables or vast hydroponic units. It seems to only cover intensive and semi intensive farming of animals destined for human food production. Strangely I don't think factory farming is a term that's used in reference to people keeping bee hives either. If it is then perhaps there's an argument for eating the honey of wild bees and an argument against an apiarist's honey. Odd yeah? I would have to argue, if we're to have cities, and we are, then unless ALL CITY DWELLERS become self reliant in food production "factory" farming is essential. Unless all city, country & remote population ALL become self reliant & venture into solely subsistence existence then we actually need broad acre farming, intensive farming and other methods of growing larger amounts of product per acre for selling to downstream processing. "Factory Farming" is a deliberately designed term, constructed to evoke a negative view of animal for food production.
Sentient Beings. Its often propelled into anti-meat debates as a reason to morally oppose and stop the production of meat animals for food consumption. Its used to say that animals are thinking beings which also experience pleasure and pain, therefore they morally do not deserve to be enslaved and used cruelly, in the more extreme Animal Rights folks, its a reason not to use them in food production full stop (Remember this point, its important you do cos we're going to return to it for closer inspection). Now whether or not this also applies to other animal products that we use food or not depends sometimes on whether the person arguing is a staunch vegan or not. So for some, animal produced food products such as milk, cream (and other dairy products), eggs and honey are off the menu.
Live Export, Factory Farming & Sentient Beings. 3 related topics and ALL THREE suffer selective usage as deemed useful to people in the debate.
How so with Sentient Beings? Well, it comes back to religion, which for most people of the world, a religious worldview is the original source of the term and concept of sentient beings. Which religions well if you're right into the sentience theme as a part of your worldview you're likely to be a follower of an eastern religion. Eastern religions including Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism recognize non-humans as sentient beings. Now if you're staying up at night having trouble sleeping you can activate Google and check out Sentiocentrism or sentio-centrism describes the theory that (all and only) sentient individuals are the centre of moral concern. Yep moral concern and moral authority is something I seem to touch on, near on an underlying theme I admit. Mainly because moral concern is quickly ascribed to animals but where and what is the moral authority, origin of the morals is avoided like poison. Some of that might be because some folk don't want the origin of morals to include a transcendent creator (Yep, well probably try to touch on that angle later too).
Its just that when someone tells me killing animals for food is immoral, they have to have a moral standard by which to make such a truth claim. Its not unreasonable to ask them to present it. Its not unreasonable to expect them to be imperfect just me and like the rest of humanity but they surely can answer that question fairly and clearly. No one is perfect amongst us. Its reasonable to assume that whether or not you keep all moral laws, its fair to expect you'd be against someone breaking a criminal law and/or a moral law if you're to occupy the moral high ground. If it is possible to argue that its ok to break and enter (that is illegal entry) to help save an animal from the immorality of becoming a human's meal then it should be clearly set out how and based upon what, because you need a moral authority to trump moral and criminal codes. If you're fighting against something you claim is morally wrong, you kinda lose a ton of credibility if you ignore the law of the land and conduct criminal behaviour. That kind of moral selection is moral relativism, if the individual gets to choose then its all meaningless anyway. we're down to whatever suits whichever individual. If there's a moral authority, cite it for us all to understand. Sadly when you press the moral-let-us-see button some folk scamper and you can even be attacked for being "religious". Yes, its a special kind of odd.
If you claim to be non-religious, follower of no faith I'd probably disagree. It is impossible to remove God and replace Him with a vacuum or void. Those that remove God generally replace Him with the next best thing, something they venerate or long for. In short, another deity, religion or faith of some description will step in...or some mix of religious facets or tenants that suit the person denouncing religion/s. There's even a few folk arguing that atheism is a religion...something for another time and place.
If you definitely believe there is no God, no Creator, that all is a result of nature, chance and evolution then perhaps then and only then are we all animals and speciesism is a viable idea, but for some strangely no, for some folk we're all animals with similar rights, the right to live and let live so we shouldn't be cruel to animals and we certainly shouldn't eat them because they're sentient beings.
Then there's no moral dilemma if the lion kills the antelope and because I happen to be there nearby I kill the lion, take the antelope carcass and cook it for myself. Some will argue no, the lion is a sentient being and should not have been killed. Such a moral problem didn't exist for the lion when it was killing and if all animals are equal and speciesism is despicable and to be opposed then I have every right to kill the predator to eat its prey. Where do the morals come from if its wrong?
Perhaps if its all dog eat dog and survival of the fittest, morals actually are a deceptive hindrance & hurdle to the clearly only real natural way, dog eat dog. Morals in a fully secular natural world MUST be a fake smoke screen. I can kill the lady with the shopping trolley & take her food and her 4WD cos the tank is full and she has food and its there. Survival of the fittest. No obviously this is illegal (and to me abhorrent and immoral) but while its against the law, if we're all just animals then its not morally wrong. This will come as a wonderful consulation to the serious career criminals just about the exit jail. They can have complete peace of mind and know in good faith they can ethically and morally go all Chopper Reid over someone who has a larger slice of pie when they get out. They just have to just make sure they don't get caught because the law of the land might not be too good to them, but morally, they're good to go. Seems the human conscience is really a serious hurdle to be overcome if we're to move up in the completely nature only world as individuals.
Oh course this is utter bullocks, but its the Pandora's box of murky conundrums the godless folk have to some how overcome. Generally though, religion is splashed as being bad and topic closed and avoided. Should be reasonable to ask.
One side step is morals "are innate and like kindness, something you have or you don't" which is terribly flawed in this nature world where we're all just animals of evolution. If it such a case, then the lion doesn't have morals and to rate it lower is that horrible species-ism again. Its really quite funny the more you look at it and if we're all just a result of nature, chance, evolution and there is no creator, there are no real morals, just some bluffs that work with some people and none of the animals...they're a tool for control and have no real ethical foundation whatsoever. Nature rules, morals are fake. Its at this point the naturalist view of including morals is kinda like the cat chasing its tail, except every time the cat gets close it slams into a logical brick wall.
To quote Voiceless - "Farmed animals are conscious beings with rich experiences of the world. They suffer from pain, feel emotions and build strong relationships. These capacities ought to be considered when making ethical decisions about the treatment of animals"
Now its not unfair to ask the question, "Ahh ok but does that really matter to the cow who provided the steak I'm eating or is it supposed to matter to us or society as a moral question?"
In some restaurants you can go up to the aquarium, look at the fish or lobster and select the one you choose to eat. Whether you want to do that or not is clearly a personal choice, but is there something wrong with meeting your meal while its alive, then actually going thru with the process of having someone kill it, prepare it, cook it and present it on a plate for you?
"Ought to be considered" - why? No seriously why?
In the naturalistic world of food chains of various animals, being freaks of nature, chance and evolution why ought it be considered? Now its easier for those who follow a religion or a deity, but the Godless, their "ought" could be the trick a lion type person uses to control or bring down an antelope type person, after all, if we're all "just animals together" morals and other things we "ought" have no real ethical grounding at all. "Ought to be considered" - says who and why?
If we're all equal animals on a spinning planet with no creator, then the "oughts" are inventions which we have no obligations to follow whatsoever, no matter how pretty and flowery the prose or stance.
There is no foundation.
I hope some folk can see or are beginning the logical implosion here for the naturalistic world moraliser.
Now lets return to the first point I said to remember about sentience.
Its used to say that animals are thinking beings which also experience pleasure and pain, therefore they morally do not deserve to be enslaved and used cruelly, in the more extreme Animal Rights folks, its a reason not to use them in food production full stop.
Some folk point to The Cambridge Declaration of Consciousness as a great pointer to validate Sentient Beings. It was signed by a group of eminent professionals in the related fields on July 7th 2012 at Francis Crick Memorial Conference, you can Google it and plenty will come up including the Declaration was signed in front of Steven Hawkings. Ahh thing is, it puts science to consciousness and doesn't seem to mean that we should eat animals at all. Some people sentient beings feel pain, fear and pleasure. Peter Singer seems to draw close on that angle too, but the declaration doesn't go over to suggest because they feel we shouldn't eat them at all.
The lion, the antelope and us humans are apparently all sentient beings.
Apparently we all share considerable rights, and being a sentient being we are all central to moral consideration. Strangely it certainly seems the lion isn't to fussed about morals in killing the antelope, or indeed if its required killing us.
Strangely there's atheist who thinks there is no God and its all been random mutation since something somehow went from chemical soup to living cell. Or perhaps from goo to you via the zoo.
They have a clearer logical path in rejecting morals, rejecting Animal Rights extremists and going their fully godless path and eating what they want guilt free. To them there is no logic ruling out species-ism.
For the devout Judaeo-Christian, Muslim devotee, there is no moral problem breeding and raising animals for meat consumption. In fact in the Torah, Bible, Koran its not a problem at all and Species-ism again pops up, no matter what your faith (including atheism) as being morally and logically coherent.
So if a sentient creature is one that feels pleasure and pain, fear etc, what is the problem with the lion eating the antelope or the human going the next logical step and farming livestock for food. What's wrong with one sentient creature eating another and us as human beings putting ourselves at the top of the food chain?
Morally? Nothing if you're of religious persuasion
Morally? Nothing if you truly are convinced you and we all live in a Godless existence.
If you're an extremist, you may well say we shouldn't eat sentient beings because they feel fear, pain, pleasure and have a right to a full life. But why?
Who ascribes the reason why and under what authority?
Having consciousness to feel things can be proven, but how does that become and who was it who had the authority to say that ability is the reason they shouldn't be eaten.
Peter Singer trod on this notion a little accidentally and unintentionally.
If a person cannot feel anything, cannot experience anything they have a lower moral worth apparently...potentially none. So eating a person in a coma therefore becomes more "morally" ok under that premise than eating a sheep or a cow.
If you want to live a vegan life, go for it. Its your body and you have the right (and I respect, encourage and will defend your right) to choose to fuel your body with whatever you want. Except human flesh cos my worldview doesn't allow that :-)
By all means be vegetarian or vegan and battle on for the prevention for cruelty for animals while you're at it. Its all good with me, its a good and worthwhile pursuit.
Just try to avoid using morals to stop meat and animal products for food, especially when your morals are self chosen or self concocted opinions. Be a little honest intellectually and if you're going to use morals, outline fully and properly, without squirming your origins of morals and the moral authority. If morals don't transcend humans (that is come from a Creator) then they're opinions...relative and subjective.
Speciesism - Google it...it is not a negative thing that negates the human the right to eat meat from other animals, to farm them or anything else. Its a nice try but its try, but its another logic bomb in the minefield the extremist seems to have set for them selves :-)
Speciesism - its not a dirty word
