Peter Singer's Argument Against Factory Farming

Peter Singer argues against factory farming from a utilitarian position. His philosophy is that all suffering is morally relevant and the suffering as a result of factory farming is too great to be considered morally defensible despite its benefits. Despite Singer’s belief that factory farming is immoral, I argue he would not necessarily consider all forms of animal agriculture to be. Following Singer’s utilitarian argument, a form of animal agriculture that eliminates the animals’ suffering and where they are killed quickly and painlessly would not be considered immoral. I will show this by considering the specific conditions of factory farming Singer considers immoral and why his argument would not apply to all farming methods. Utilitarianism

Each of the three premises, however, have room for objections. One may reject the philosophy of utilitarianism all together, prioritizing some other consequence or principle. Others such as Joe Regenstein argue that the conditions animals live in in factory farms are actually better than living in the wild (or not living at all). And because Peter Singer’s argument requires the calculation of some measure of utility, it is possible that errors result in the wrong conclusion being made. While these objections lie in the uncertainty of the facts, scientific evidence generally supports Singer’s

There are several aspects of differing types of animal farming where Singer’s premises do not apply. Scientific evidence shows that some animals likely do not feel pain, and therefore according to Singer they do not need moral consideration. For instance, while bivalves such as oysters and clams are animals, they do not have a brain and therefore do not have the capacity to suffer in a way similar to how humans do. The calculation of utility in this case would allow for the harvesting of these animals for food. In fact, Singer has stated he himself eats oysters on occasion.

As Singer believes animals do not have the capacity for temporal awareness, there is not a clear argument that the act of ending an animal’s life in itself is morally wrong. Singer states, “They will not have desires that project their images of their own existence into the future.” Thus, after living a relatively pain-free and happy life, painlessly ending a non-self aware animal's life may be morally permissible. The utility gained from harvesting the animal’s flesh for human consumption would make animal agriculture like Joel Salatin’s vision for “alternative farming” technology morally