Everyday Ethics

In a recent article published in The American, farmer Blake Hurst attempts to make a positive case for industrial agriculture.  Hurst makes two key points, both of which reflect questionable assumptions that come to light in the face of philosophical analysis.  Hurst also provides us with an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the practical applicability of philosophical tools to real world, everyday problems.

Hurst’s first point is that farmers who use industrial techniques do so not because they are sadists, but because they are trying to maximize profits.  For example, sow stalls are utilized not to torture pigs, but to protect piglets from being harmed by their own mothers.  A live pig is worth more than a dead one, as Hurst puts it.  Farmers aren’t trying to hurt their animals; they are simply trying to make a living.

There are two assumptions at work here, the revelation of which serves to undermine Hurst’s point.  First, Hurst assumes that critics of industrial farming think it is sadistic.  But the critics are not as ill informed as Hurst assumes.  The issue is not whether or not industrial farming is sadistic, but whether it is inappropriately painful for the animals.  Further, Hurst assumes that the economic benefits of industrial techniques justify the harm that these methods cause.

Hurst’s second point is that only industrialized agriculture is capable of “feeding the world.”  Again, several assumptions are at work.  First, Hurst assumes that we ought to be trying to feed the world, whatever the costs of doing so might be.  Second, he fails to consider the negative correlations between industrialized farming and human hunger.  Industrialization breeds agricultural monism.  In other words, it’s tough to grow a variety of crops using industrial techniques, but humans can’t survive by eating nothing but soybeans, rice, and wheat all the time.

In addition, industrialized agriculture has made the conspicuous consumption of animal products ubiquitous at the global level.  Using traditional methods, there is no way the entire human population could eat the way Americans do.  Without industrial agriculture, Americans couldn’t do so either.  The problem is that globalization has made the American diet of mostly animal products the gold standard for nutritional preference across the globe.  Industrial agriculture masks the unsustainable nature of this way of eating.

In short, Hurst’s entire argument rests on a series of questionable and unsupported assumptions.  It is certainly possible to defend meat consumption, and even industrial agriculture, provided one is willing to address the pressing concerns we’ve mentioned here.  More importantly, philosophical analysis allows us to see an initially compelling argument in its true light.  By thinking critically about these sorts of everyday issues, we can begin to separate legitimate arguments from unsupported moral rhetoric.

About the Author

Elijah Weber is a graduate student at Bowling Green State University. He holds a Master's degree in philosophy from Colorado State University, and Bachelor’s degrees in sociology and philosophy from Chapman Univerity. He currently lives in Bowling Green, Ohio with his wife Laura, his newborn son Brandon, and his feline life-partner Monte.