The animal rights movement consists of privileged ideology based off emotion and no logic. Nathanael Johnson explores these ideals in “Is there a Moral Case for Meat?” and a couple in the film “At the Fork” explores the morality of farming. While the article and film seem to take similar stances on the farming of animals, I disagree. Humans do not have a responsibility to avoid meat or mitigate the suffering of farm raised animals. In fact, the widespread belief that farming conditions should change or that humans should avoid meat would negatively impact the economy. In the article, “Is there a moral case for meat?”, Nathanael Johnson splits his essay into two parts. In the first part of the article, Johnson tries to find a logical counter
…show more content…
I think that the economic consequences of the animal rights movement is far more important than the emotional and ethical concerns activists have. Thus, I do not think that we should strive to better the living conditions of farm animals. In the article, Johnson even states that often the “cheapest high quality protein available to the poor comes from animals”. If consumers put enough pressure on companies to provide better living conditions for animals, to increase productivity, producers would have to also increase price. It is a simple economics equation: an increase in resources and labor would increase price. Thus, while trying to save animals, activist are potentially hurting …show more content…
If you think about it, these animals in the wild are constantly struggling to survive. In “At the Fork”, one farmer explained “ our feeding system ensures the right amount of nutrients are given so that each animal is healthy”. In contrast, wild or even pasture raised animals typically “do not have the right balance of nutrients”. Despite Johnson’s belief that animals need better living conditions, he admits that some farm practices “may be fine from the animal’s perspective”. For example, Johnson explains how caging egg-laying hens is natural because “in the wild she has an instinct to hide in the bushes” when she is laying eggs. Despite belief of both Johnson and the Papola’s, living conditions of these farm animals are not that
I think that the economic consequences of the animal rights movement is far more important than the emotional and ethical concerns activists have. Thus, I do not think that we should strive to better the living conditions of farm animals. In the article, Johnson even states that often the “cheapest high quality protein available to the poor comes from animals”. If consumers put enough pressure on companies to provide better living conditions for animals, to increase productivity, producers would have to also increase price. It is a simple economics equation: an increase in resources and labor would increase price. Thus, while trying to save animals, activist are potentially hurting …show more content…
If you think about it, these animals in the wild are constantly struggling to survive. In “At the Fork”, one farmer explained “ our feeding system ensures the right amount of nutrients are given so that each animal is healthy”. In contrast, wild or even pasture raised animals typically “do not have the right balance of nutrients”. Despite Johnson’s belief that animals need better living conditions, he admits that some farm practices “may be fine from the animal’s perspective”. For example, Johnson explains how caging egg-laying hens is natural because “in the wild she has an instinct to hide in the bushes” when she is laying eggs. Despite belief of both Johnson and the Papola’s, living conditions of these farm animals are not that