Animal Welfare, Research Paper Example

Although the general public is mostly against the inhumane treatment of animals, the majority of the general public is contributing to this inhumane treatment on a day to day basis. Every day, the general population consumes food products that are attributed to the slaughtering of animals to provide sources of food. Fast food chains and grocery markets supply their consumers with general food products such as chicken wings, steaks, eggs, bacon, and fish. It is common for consumers to fund the processing of these food products without knowing exactly how they were manufactured. There are humane ways of slaughtering animals in order to feed the human race where the animal feels no pain or discomfort and is killed peacefully. Unfortunately, such human methods of slaughtering animals for food are rare in today’s global economy. The world population is continuing to increase and this causes an increase in the demand for such food products. This high demand requires that mass amounts of these food products be provided to retailers as quickly as possible. This need for the mass slaughtering of animals for vast amounts of food can only be done through what is referred to as factory farming.

The application of two separate ethical theories will be applied to the dilemma of factory farming animals. Each theory will be defined and then applied to the subject of factory farming. The first ethical theory that will be applied to the subject is the utilitarian theory.

The utilitarian theory in ethics generally governs that a decision should be made based on the maximization of value or happiness. This ethical approach governs that the entity practicing it makes decisions that will have the greatest benefit that meets the interest of the majority of parties. In the utilitarian theory, the interests of all parties are equally considered initially. After a full evaluation of all parties and their interests, a decision must be made based on the maximization of happiness. In other words, a decision which benefits the most people or parties will lead to a greater value of happiness must be the selected decision. Any minority parties that do not benefit from that decision are simply disregarded along with their interests. (Haines 2015)

In the case of factory farming, the utilitarian approach to ethics can be viewed from two separate perspectives. In one perspective, a decision must be made based on what route benefits the majority of humans. Unfortunately, most people enjoy the art of dining, cooking, and simply enjoy eating. This involves the cooking and eating of chicken, cows, pigs, and fish. Most of these people would be reluctant to vote against factory farming if it meant that they would not be able to enjoy the mass and quick amounts of food that they normally have access to. Despite knowing that many animals suffer from factory farming, most people would rather ignore the inhumane treatment of these animals and instead continue to satisfy their appetite. The party of people whom are against factory farming and are willing to fully surrender their appetite for the betterment of animal treatment are in the minority. (Singer 2003)

In taking the utilitarian approach to ethics from the perspective of the general population of humans, it would be ethically correct to continue factory farming as it satisfies the majority party. All other interests of the minority party who is against factory farming would be disregarded. (Mill 2015)

The second perspective in the utilitarian approach to ethics in the case of factory farming referred to the perspective of the animals themselves. These may be grey area between these two perspectives because it creates the dilemma of whose interest carries greater value, the humans or the animals. However, by text book definition, the utilitarian theory considers the interests of all parties equally. This notion would govern that the interests of the animals are equally considered alongside with the interests of humans. Unfortunately, even in assuming that the interests of both parties are considered equally from the perspective of the animals, their interests are still in the minority. The number of humans is greater than the number of animals being factory farmed. Therefore, even from the perspective of the animals, it would still be appropriate to continue factory farming as it satisfies the greater party. (Mill 2015)

The next ethical theory that will be assessed and applied to the subject of factory farming is referred to as the deontology theory. In taking the deontological approach to ethics, a decision is made based on the assessment of morality alone without any regard to the value of happiness or majority parties. For example, a Christian would make their decisions based on the biblical laws of the 10 commandments in their religion, regardless of how many people their decision may or may not satisfy. Basically, the deontological approach to ethics only considers what the decision maker believes is right or wrong and not how many people their decision can satisfy. (Kant 2008)

Very much like the utilitarian approach, the deontological approach to ethics in the subject of factory farming can be viewed from different perspectives. However, these different perspectives are not as simple as dividing the interests of the humans and the interests of the animals as applied in the utilitarian theory. Because the deontological approach is based on the concepts of right and wrong, it is subject to interpretation. This is because the concepts of right and wrong themselves are subject to interpretation. These interpretations can vary as they are based on personal morals and religious beliefs. However, for the purpose of this assessment, it can be assumed that the inhumane treatment of animals in unethical and simply wrong. (Kant 2008)

Consider that factory farming is discontinued. Many people would be dissatisfied because their appetites and hunger for their desired food products would no longer be accessible. Now consider that factory farming continues. Many animals would be unhappy because they will continue to be locked up in cages, force fed, and processed through machinery while they are still alive. Taking the deontological approach, the unsatisfied appetite of humans is minimal in damage when compared to the inhumane torture that the animals must suffer should factory farming continue. (Kant 2008)

It is true that if factory farming discontinues, much of the food supply would be cut off from the economy. However, this does not necessarily mean that people will starve to death. The traditional farming of fruits, vegetables, and grains can be continued and even expanded so that there is more than enough food for everybody to eat. With the continued supply of food for the human race ensured through the traditional farming of earth grown foods, the deontological approach would govern that it is appropriate to discontinue factory farming. No animals have to suffer and the human race can continue to fulfil their appetites. (Kant 2008)

Although many people will still be unhappy despite still having plenty of food to eat, the deontological approach to ethics does not take into consideration the value of happiness as the utilitarian theory would. This deontological approach makes the decision to discontinue factory farming based on ethical standards and moral encompassment. Regardless of how many people will be satisfied or dissatisfied, or even how many animals will be satisfied or dissatisfied, the decision is simply based on what is considered right or wrong. In this case of factory farming, it is considered wrong to continue factory farming due to the amount of suffering and pain it causes to animals. (Kant 2008)

In evaluating all of the factors that both the utilitarian and the deontological theories of ethics present; it can be assumed that the deontological theory presents the most persuasive moral argument in the subject of factory farming. In this case of factory farming, the actions themselves carry greater weight in the decision making than the value of happiness. This means that the action of factory farming is considered unethical regardless of how many people it pleases. It would be inappropriate to take the utilitarian approach in this case simply because of the unethical elements present in the action itself. (Haines 2015) (Kant 2008)

Consider the idea that the government had to make a decision to either make people continue to work for a pay check, or to simply give everybody free money. Taking the utilitarian approach to ethics, it would be appropriate in this case for the government to simply give everybody free money without having to do any work because that decision would satisfy the most people, generating the greatest value of happiness. However, granting everybody free money would mean that nobody would have any motivation to work. This would mean that nobody would work to engineer oil, produce electricity, or uphold the law as a police officer. Giving everybody free money would eventually cause the economy to collapse and end in complete chaos. This scenario proves that the utilitarian approach to ethics is not always logical and it is only intended for specific situations where factory farming is not one of them. (Mill 2015)

In conclusion, both of these ethical approaches have flaws in them. At the same time, both of them can be considerably effective in decision making. It is all based on the specific situation, the circumstances, and the overall outcome or consequences in some cases. In any situation where an ethical decision must be made, all factors and possible outcomes must be considered when choosing the appropriate ethical theory to govern the decision making process. While no ethical theory is perfect, each ethical theory including the utilitarian and deontological theories are unique in their own ways. The ideas and considerations of what is ethical or unethical will always be subject to one’s interpretation based on the variations of beliefs, morals, and religions. While one party thinks it is okay for homosexuals to get married, another may feel that all homosexuals must be executed. As with the case of factory farming, this case would require an assessment of different ethical theories and even laws. It is up to the decision makers of any given situation to take the appropriate due process in fully evaluating the circumstances of every decision so that the most logical and effective decision can be made.

References

Haines, W. (n.d.). Consequentialism. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/conseque/

Kant, I. (2008). Groundwork for the metaphysic of morals. In J. Bennett (Ed. & Trans.), Early Modern Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdfs/kant1785.pdf (Original work published in 1785).

Mill, J. S. Utilitarianism, in the original version in the textbook, or in the version by Jonathan Bennett retrieved from www.earlymoderntexts.com

Singer, P. (2003). Voluntary euthanasia: A utilitarian perspective. Bioethics, 17(5/6), 526-541. Retrieved from the EBSCOhost database.