The Solution: Part 3

The Solution: Part 3

(Peter Singer Continued)

In his book In Defense of Animals: A Second Wave, Singer argues against the current food production processes in America stating that they use cost benefit analysis to “justify crowding animals, the use of antibiotics in feed, and converting farming communities into factory towns.”[1] He continues on to list the many injustices that result from the centralization of food production. These injustices include the mutilation and killing of animals, risk of consumer disease, degradation of land, destruction of wildlife habitat, contribution to global warming and ultimately the harm to human dignity as a result of being active participants.[2] It is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that Singer is against the centralization of food production and factory farming, but he does not explicitly state his opinion of decentralizing these processes.

I think it is fair to assume that Singer would support the decentralization of food production in America. Although Singer chooses not to consume meat and urges others to follow in his footsteps, utilitarian ideals would want the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, or, in this case, animals. It is clear that with the decentralization of food production, factory farms would be significantly smaller, if not entirely extinct. Factory farms are where the most injustices towards animals occur, so it can be assumed that the decentralization of food production in America would greatly reduce the amount of injustices towards animals. This would be the greatest good for the greatest number of animals.

The Solution: Part 4 (Sneak Peek)
 What arguments can be made FOR centralized food production?

Citations:

[1] Singer, Peter. In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2006. p. 119
[2] Ibid.