The Solution: Part 1 (An Introduction)

I assume many of you are thinking that this article series is going to be a plug for buying Organic. As much as I do encourage buying Organic, that is a very small part of what we believe to be the overall solution to our planet’s problem. We’d love your feedback and comments! Here we go with...

The Solution: Part 1

Americans are constantly targets of stereotypes; we all drive gas guzzling SUV’s, we all suffer from obesity, we all have horrible taste in beer and none of us have the slightest idea of what is going on in the rest of the world. Of the standard set of stereotypes, there is one that seems to be more fitting than the others; Americans love fast food. Fast food has revolutionized the way the average American eats on a daily basis. There are nearly thirteen thousand McDonald’s restaurants in America today.[1] With the expansion of fast food in America came a centralization of food production, especially with regards to beef, an American favorite.

It is generally regarded as a good thing that Americans have access to such cheap food due to the centralization of meat and produce. In this article series, we plan to analyze the ethical dilemmas of the centralization of food production in America according to Peter Singer. We have already addressed ethical issues raised by Michael Northcott in his book A Moral Climate (See “Why Organic?”). We intend to analyze the opinions of Peter Singer in his book Practical Ethics along with Michael Northcott and attempt to apply their thoughts to the idea of the decentralization of food production in America. We will then analyze the counter argument of Jonathan Rushton in his book The Economics of Animal Health and Production.

These three thinkers bring us different perspectives on this issue that result in different conclusions. Singer and Northcott would agree that the current food production processes in America are, at the very least, bad, if not immoral. While Peter Singer might be more focused on the well-being of the animals and Northcott focused on the environmental effects of our food production process, they both would agree that a change needs to be made. Rushton argues that the centralization of food production in America has many advantages which are not worth giving up.

Peter Singer, in chapter ten of his book Practical Ethics, asks the question “Why should I act morally?” This question urges a person to develop reasons for acting with the consideration of others, human and, arguably, non-human animals, in mind. We will analyze this idea of acting morally with the consideration of non-human animals in mind to discover whether Singer would believe the decentralization of food production in America to be moral.

Here at The Organic Hype, we believe that the best solution to our problems (i.e. climate change, american obesity, loss of food appreciation etc) is to decentralize the food production process. Throughout this series, we hope to spell out what that would look like on a national scale and what you can do to contribute to The Solution.

The Solution: Part 2 (Sneak Peak)
Let’s take a look at what Peter Singer and Utilitarianism would tell us about the treatment of animals!

Citations:

[1] "Food Statistics McDonalds Restaurants (most Recent) by Country." Nation Master. Web. <

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/foo_mcd_res-food-mcdonalds-restaurants>.