3 ms·

Laws like this are a fantastic example of people trying to avoid a moral argument. Whether or not chickens are of moral consequence is an argument that can be

Laws like this are a fantastic example of people trying to avoid a moral argument. Whether or not chickens are of moral consequence is an argument that can be had; it is perfectly reasonable to for the owners of these factory farms to either argue that chickens are not of moral consequence and deserve no more protection or consideration than the rocks in a quarry or that the methods they use are moral and do not constitute an unreasonable mistreatment of the chickens. But they prefer not to have that argument; this is not unlike many other industries who prefer to avoid moral arguments by hiding or denying the facts.

TillE 11y ago
There are a surprising number of people in the world who know what they're doing looks terrible, and usually is terrible. Like Vedanta Resources operating a mine in Zambia that causes horrific pollution to the local area, to pick just the most recent example that comes to mind. It's important to consider every issue carefully, but if you're looking for good intentions or honest arguments, you will very frequently be disappointed.
salmonellaeater 11y ago
I can sympathize with the farmers because it's really hard to have a rational conversation in the face of strong emotional reactions to graphic imagery. People feel empathy for many things they shouldn't, such as robots[1], and the feeling of empathy is not a reliable way to determine something's moral status. Nevertheless, the natural way people make decisions on moral issues like this is to accept their emotional reaction and then rationalize their decision after the fact[2][3][4]. I wonder how much of the shift in public opinion on animal rights is a result of people not being exposed to farm animals anymore. The vast majority of people these days, myself included, meets only pets (and occasionally wild animals). If the only examples of animals you have in your personal life are companions, it's natural to want to treat animals well. [1] E.g. How Anthropomorphism Affects Empathy Toward Robots http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pr10/publications/hri09.pdf http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pr10/publications/hri09.pdf [2] The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment http://www3.nd.edu/~wcarbona/Haidt%202001.pdf http://www3.nd.edu/~wcarbona/Haidt%202001.pdf [3] The Status of Moral Emotions in Consequentialist Moral Reasoning http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Frank_Status_of_Moral_Reasoning.pdf http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Fran... [4] The Secret Joke of Kant's Soul http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~lchang/material/Evolutionary/Developmental/Greene-KantSoul.pdf http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~lchang/material/Evolutionary/Dev...
- bayesianhorse 11y ago
  Battery cages do constitute animal cruelty in most senses of the word. The natural behavior of the hens is widely modified, injuries from the equipment/cage are the norm rather than the exception, and you could go on and on. So, "empathy" towards chickens in these systems isn't just anthropomorphism or oversensitivity. A lot of the same reasoning applies to dairy farms, but there the issues get more complicated.

TillE 11y ago

There are a surprising number of people in the world who know what they're doing looks terrible, and usually is terrible. Like Vedanta Resources operating a mine in Zambia that causes horrific pollution to the local area, to pick just the most recent example that comes to mind. It's important to consider every issue carefully, but if you're looking for good intentions or honest arguments, you will very frequently be disappointed.

salmonellaeater 11y ago

I can sympathize with the farmers because it's really hard to have a rational conversation in the face of strong emotional reactions to graphic imagery. People feel empathy for many things they shouldn't, such as robots[1], and the feeling of empathy is not a reliable way to determine something's moral status. Nevertheless, the natural way people make decisions on moral issues like this is to accept their emotional reaction and then rationalize their decision after the fact[2][3][4]. I wonder how much of the shift in public opinion on animal rights is a result of people not being exposed to farm animals anymore. The vast majority of people these days, myself included, meets only pets (and occasionally wild animals). If the only examples of animals you have in your personal life are companions, it's natural to want to treat animals well. [1] E.g. How Anthropomorphism Affects Empathy Toward Robots http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pr10/publications/hri09.pdf http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pr10/publications/hri09.pdf [2] The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment http://www3.nd.edu/~wcarbona/Haidt%202001.pdf http://www3.nd.edu/~wcarbona/Haidt%202001.pdf [3] The Status of Moral Emotions in Consequentialist Moral Reasoning http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Frank_Status_of_Moral_Reasoning.pdf http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Fran... [4] The Secret Joke of Kant's Soul http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~lchang/material/Evolutionary/Developmental/Greene-KantSoul.pdf http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~lchang/material/Evolutionary/Dev...

bayesianhorse 11y ago
Battery cages do constitute animal cruelty in most senses of the word. The natural behavior of the hens is widely modified, injuries from the equipment/cage are the norm rather than the exception, and you could go on and on. So, "empathy" towards chickens in these systems isn't just anthropomorphism or oversensitivity. A lot of the same reasoning applies to dairy farms, but there the issues get more complicated.