Hope and Despair at the Kantian Chicken Factory

2020 ◽  
pp. 213-238
Author(s):  
Andrew Chignell

People who like animal products but believe it is wrong to consume them are often so demoralized by the apparent inefficacy of their individual, private choices that they are unable to resist. Although he was a deontologist, Kant was also aware of this ‘consequent-dependent’ side of our moral psychology. One version of his ‘moral proof’ is designed to respond to the threat of such demoralization in pursuit of the Highest Good. It provides a model for a contemporary, secular argument regarding what is permitted in order to sustain resolve in contemporary industrial contexts (like that of industrial animal agriculture). The argument’s conclusion is that one of the things we can rationally hold, as an item of defeasible moral faith, is a certain decision-theoretic principle regarding what it is to ‘make a difference’.

2011 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROE FREMSTEDAL

AbstractThe present article deals with religious faith by comparing the so-called double movement of faith in Kierkegaard to Kant's moral faith. Kierkegaard's double movement of faith and Kant's moral faith can be seen as providing different accounts of religious faith, as well as involving different solutions to the problem of realizing the highest good. The double movement of faith in Fear and Trembling provides an account of the structure of faith that helps us make sense of what Kierkegaard means by religious faith in general, as well as to understand better the relation between philosophy and Christian thinking in Kierkegaard. It is argued that previous scholarship has described the relation between Kierkegaard and Kant in a misleading manner by interpreting Kant as an ethicist and overlooking the role of grace in Kant.


Utilitas ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 350-367
Author(s):  
Donald W. Bruckner

AbstractA common and convincing argument for the moral requirement of veganism is based on the widespread, severe, and unnecessary harm done to animals, the environment, and humans by the practices of animal agriculture. If this harm footprint argument succeeds in showing that producing and consuming animal products is morally impermissible, then parallel harm footprint arguments show that a vast array of modern practices are impermissible. On this first horn of the dilemma, by engaging in these practices, vegans are living immorally by their own lights. This first horn can be avoided by assuming that morality requires not minimizing harm, but only keeping the harm of our actions within some budget. On the second horn, however, we recognize that there are many ways of keeping our harm footprints within budget other than through our dietary choices. On the second horn of the vegan's dilemma, therefore, veganism is not a moral requirement.


2004 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
pp. 133-153
Author(s):  
R.W. Blake ◽  
C.F. Nicholson

Rapid predicted worldwide growth in demand for animal products to 2020, the so-called “next food revolution” in animal agriculture, portends complex interactions among people, biological and geophysical resources, and economic objectives. Consumer demand for beef and pork is expected to increase by 2.8% per year, somewhat slower than demand growth for poultry meat (3.1%/yr). Demand for dairy products is predicted to grow fastest, at 3.3%/yr (Delgado et al., 1999).


1986 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 843-844
Author(s):  
C. M. WILLIAMS

Constraints on animal agriculture are varied and complex but it is necessary that they be understood in order to progress. In addition to biological constraints, economic, political and health-related issues of animal products as food for mankind must be appreciated. Key words: Constraints, animal, production


2014 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 69-88
Author(s):  
Wojciech Wierzejski

This article presents the system of industrial food animal production (IFAP) in the USA. There is a trend in animal agriculture to conduct fewer financial operations and to have more animals raised on each farm and fewer corporations controlling most aspects of the supply chain – from breeding through feed production to slaughter and the marketing of meat, milk and eggs. Much of the burden of producing animal products in the industrialized system is externalized in public health and natural environment, and it also generates considerable social costs. The model, however, has been followed in many other countries and continues to be replicated around the world. Is there an alternative?


Animals ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 145
Author(s):  
Silvia Panizza

In their daily practices, many ethical vegans choose what to eat, wear, and buy among a range that is limited to the exclusion of animal products. Rather than considering and then rejecting the idea of using such products, doing so often does not occur to them as a possibility at all. In other cases, when confronted with the possibility of consuming animal products, vegans have claimed to reject it by saying that it would be impossible for them to do so. I refer to this phenomenon as ‘moral impossibility’. An analysis of moral impossibility in animal ethics shows that it arises when one’s conception of ‘what animals are’ shifts—say through encounter with other animals. It also arises when individuals learn more about animals and what happens to them in production facilities. This establishes a link between increased knowledge, understanding, and imaginative exploration on the one hand, and the exclusion of the possibility of using animals as resources on the other. Taking moral impossibility in veganism seriously has two important consequences: one is that the debate around veganism needs to shift from choice and decision, to a prior analysis of concepts and moral framing; the other is that moral psychology is no longer seen as empirical psychology plus ethical analysis, but the contents of psychological findings are understood as being influenced and framed by moral reflection.


Author(s):  
Lisa Kemmerer

Each chapter of Eating Earth focuses on environmental problems that stem from our willingness to consume animal products—environmental problems that stem from animal agriculture, fisheries, and hunting policies and practices. The final chapter also exposes relevant history and myths that explain why the vast majority of U.S. citizens continues to accept sport hunting despite the environmental problems that stem from this deadly pass time. Animal products, whether organic or local, whether hunted or purchased, whether chicken or fish or yogurt, harm the environment. As this book draws to a close, it is important to at least mention the larger picture with regard to ethics and dietary choice: There are a handful of other critical reasons to move decisively toward a plant-based diet, all of which are interconnected. I remember the five reasons for choosing a plant-based diet through a mnemonic using the Italian word for love, AMORE. In this acronym, “A” represents what is likely the most common reason for choosing a vegan diet—animals. In choosing to kill or buy body parts, mammary secretions, and eggs from other animals, we support the exploitation and slaughter of living, breathing, sentient beings, who would prefer to live out their natural lives peacefully in their own communities. In the U.S., ten billion farmed animals are denied pretty much every natural behavior, without regard to their sufferings, only to be shipped to their deaths when they are adolescents—all for the sake of eggs, milk, and various “meats.” The long-term suffering endured by farmed animals—especially female farmed animals in the egg and dairy industries—is truly unconscionable. Cruel practices are always unearthed when undercover investigators penetrate the increasingly thick walls that conceal common animal agriculture practices. If you are unaware of the stunted lives and premature deaths forced on farmed animals around the world, please explore footage taken by undercover activists, starting with the excellent YouTube clip, “If Slaughterhouses Had Glass Walls.” “M” represents the many critical medical reasons for rejecting an omnivore’s diet.


Author(s):  
Suresh Neethirajan

As the global human population increases, animal agriculture must adapt to provide more animal products while also addressing concerns about animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and public health. The purpose of this review is to discuss the digitalization of animal farming with Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) technologies, specifically biosensors, big data, and block chain technology. Biosensors are noninvasive or invasive sensors that monitor an animal’s health and behavior in real time, allowing farmers to monitor individual animals and integrate this data for population-level analyses. The data from the sensors is processed using big data-processing techniques such as data modelling. These technologies use algorithms to sort through large, complex data sets to provide farmers with biologically relevant and usable data. Blockchain technology allows for traceability of animal products from farm to table, a key advantage in monitoring disease outbreaks and preventing related economic losses and food-related health pandemics. With these PLF technologies, animal agriculture can become more transparent and regain consumer trust. While the digitalization of animal farming has the potential to address a number of pressing concerns, these technologies are relatively new. The implementation of PLF technologies on farms will require increased collaboration between farmers, animal scientists, and engineers to ensure that technologies can be used in realistic, on-farm conditions. These technologies will call for data models that can sort through large amounts of data while accounting for specific variables and ensuring automation, accessibility, and accuracy of data. Issues with data privacy, security, and integration will need to be addressed before there can be multi-farm databases. Lastly, the usage of blockchain technology in animal agriculture is still in its infancy; blockchain technology has the potential to improve the traceability and transparency of animal products, but more research is needed to realize its full potential. The digitalization of animal farming can supply the necessary tools to provide sustainable animal products on a global scale.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document