Ethics poll: farming animals

Can anyone who voted 'No' please provide an explanation of their view? Or even the 'Unsure' voters?

To summarise my 'Yes' position, violence against animals may be acceptable where it is a matter of survival.

Violence and prolonged suffering, such as caused by 'factory farming', is done simply for profit - it is not necessary for survival or even competitiveness - the success of the free-range industries demonstrate this.

If profit is an acceptable reason to cause suffering, then where is the problem with selling children to paedophiles?

Ok, Mr/Ms Young, I'll accept your invitation to explain.

I voted no because I have rarely seen such a silly question. It is more in the nature of "push polling" than a genuine search for opinion.

What on earth falls within the term "factory farming"? I don't know (beyond some rough general criteria), but I'm sure you'll find a variety of opinion if people are asked. What is "free range". Likewise. These terms are vague and non-specific, and have no place in a so-called "poll".

Secondly, the terms used are almost obscenely emotive. Most people who either can't define them would agree that they are very bad, and very good, things respectively. Do you think that mothers should love and nurture their babies, or slaughter them with an axe?

Thirdly it is a totally false dichotomy. It is ludicrous to suggest that there are just two alternatives, when in fact the practices of animal farming cover a huge range of areas. See the mother question above ... would anybody seriously suggest that these are the only two possible forms of maternal behaviour?

Fourthly, it completely ignores the variations within the living beings falling under the umbrella of "animals". Does anybody really suggest that oysters should be farmed free-range, or that they particularly care about the matter? On a higher level, which animals have either a recognition of, or a value of, freedom? If a sheep is put in a large paddock enclosed by fences, then provided it's given plenty to eat, opportunities to mate, protection from predators, and the ability to shelter from the elements if necessary ( all of which would be included in my definition of free-range ), I seriously doubt that it would care much about the fences. Yes, that's just my opinion, others may differ. I, on the other hand, would totally hate to live in such a situation, and would definitely try to escape, even if they adversely impacted on the reliability of my access to food, sex, physical safety and shelter. To appeal to people on the basis of "how would you like [this or that particular treatment] is a ridiculous anthropomorphisation of animals who mostly, to be fair, have probably never heard of the word.

In addition, modern neurophysiological studies ( of humans ) have mapped feelings such as happiness, love, empathy and so on to higher, more recently evolved, areas of the brain which are progressively less developed as you go down the line that separates us from slime mould, despite our significant genetic common features with the latter. The day may be coming where we no longer have to guess what animals can/can't feel, or even worse, project our own feelings onto them.

So I voted no for this shambles of a survey. Only because I had no other options. Given the choice I would have strangled it, driven a stake through it's heart, and buried it facing south in non-consecrated ground.

As to your final paragraph --- if you can't see any difference between factory farming and selling children to paedophiles, then I'm sad for you. I suspect that, like any sane human being, you can see obvious differences. Your implication that people that don't agree with your views on farming practices are unable to see the differences that you do is insulting and offensive.

As many computer users know, Godwin's Law states that the first person to mention the Nazis in a debate not specifically about them, loses. I think I'll start my own law. Let it be called Ken's law. From now on, everybody who mentions paedophiles in a debate not specifically about them, loses. And is fed to the nearest feral sheep.

Thanks for the response kdv666 (I assume also Ken).

Firstly, let's clarify that last paragraph:
Hyperbole is a rhetorical device in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

Yes, I can distinguish the difference in severity. However the underlying principal remains the same. Hence, by exaggerating the significance in one case, I make the underlying rule very very clear for the more moderate case.

Please feel free to respond to my actual argument at any time.

Yes, I agree that the question was fairly biased and emotive. That said however, I feel the majority of this was a result of implied knowledge rather than deliberate misrepresentation.

"Factory farming" and "Free range" can be interpreted broadly, but are generally well understood to involve cramped, inhumane and highly efficient conditions on one hand, and open, humane and inefficient conditions on the other.

While these are not the only two farming options, they are the two end of a spectrum of humane conditions and economic value. The question posed is not which extreme we should embrace, but which should feature more strongly - I doubt anyone will allow sheep to roam free across the country and still expect to be able to turn profit.

Finally, your observation that the terms are "obscenely emotive" are somewhat ironic given you have immediately fallen for that very trap. I think you have provided a very good demonstration of the importance of keeping your emotions and 'self' free of your decision-making.

Given this is an ethics website, I feel justified in requesting that any subsequent responses of your or others:
1) clearly address my points, and
2) avoid emotive terms and labels

Oh, and incidentally, according to Godwin's law - you just lost the game.

I'm repeating the request:

Can someone who voted 'No' or 'Unsure' please provide an explanation for their vote?

Preferably rational ones?

My "no" vote was incredibly easy due to the absolute implied in the question. "All" factory farming should not be banned. There are significant economic benefits of ff versus free range options. Many Australians are lucky enough to have the option to choose crops that cost more to grow/rear, however many also buy purely on price. I believe that the survival of humans is more important than the welfare of lower species. Until such a time arrives when the cost of free range farming produce is equivalent or less than ff, ff must continue.