How Do We Farm If We Must?: Analysis With Peter Singer's Down on the Factory Farm and Stanley Curtis's The Case for Intensive Farming of Food Animals

Factory farming is often a sore spot for American and other first world consciences. Even those that are ethically comfortable with consumption of animal products are often discomfited by the large-scale maltreatment of living creatures that is present in contemporary agribusiness. Writings that are similar to Peter Singer's “Down on the Factory Farm”, which depicts the multitude of unnatural horrors and abuses that billions of farm animals undergo before they are ultimately slaughtered for our use, make up the majority of the commentary on the subject. There seem to be few writers with the audacity to dispute the popular outcry that there is something morally reprehensible in our systematic exploitation of other species. Yet, as Stanley Curtis shows in “The Case for Intensive Farming of Food Animals”, a less emotionally charged examination is likely to be necessary if we have any aspirations of revising the current model into one that is not only more humane, but also sustainable for the environment and for the growing human population. Though our sympathies are immediately swayed by Singer's work, we must remain cognisant that, as Singer himself said, “We can't take our feelings as moral data, immune from rational criticism” (The Lives of Animals 89). Though Curtis's work seems at times overly cold in its utilitarian views, it provides an undoubtedly useful contrast to the call-to-arms of Singer's work. Evaluating them in tandem is likely the best approach to deriving a model that placates our moral dissatisfaction while meeting the requirements set forth by reality.

Curtis's model for sustainable farming is particularly compelling in that it offers an alternative to the usual suggestion that we return to small locally-own...

... middle of paper ...

... Curtis, by arguing that the current system was advantageous and needed only slight tweaks to be improved, was much easier to cater to the interests of. Singer, on the other hand, proposed an idea that required not only the complete overhaul of the current system, but of American food culture as well. His vision for what a better future, for animals and humans alike, might resemble is admirable, but tough to satisfy and even tougher to amend for the purpose of compromise without losing its meaning in the process. That Curtis's ideas are predominant in my mediation is not meant to be an indication that they are better, only that they are easier to satisfy than those of Singer. As has often been the case over the course of history, great societal changes require either a great deal of time or a great leader, if not both. I am unfortunately not in possession of either.