They are raised in wire cages no bigger than this page -- often three to a cage -- and thus are never able to spread their wings or to establish a normal pecking order. They are so unable to move that their feet grow around the wire (Spira, 2005). Packed confinement makes them try to kill each other. The "remedy" for this is to cut off their beaks. The optimal (profitable) speed for chopping beaks off is four beaks per minute. Workers in a hurry often miss and chop the flesh instead. In egg factories when egg production slows or stops, the chicken is placed in total darkness with no food or water for three days. Faced with certain death, a last-ditch reproductive response is triggered and she lays a flurry of eggs (Scully, 2003). Animals forced to live this way are not healthy, and obviously, from a utilitarian standpoint it would be in their best interests not to be sick.

Disease organisms are a nasty, inevitable part of raising animals this way. While massive doses of hormones are given to promote rapid growth (the shorter the lifetime, the more the profit), massive doses of drugs must be given to control diseases. Pharmaceutical industries now provide twice the drugs for animal consumption as for human (DeGrazia, 2003). One has only to compare the liver of a healthy chicken who lived in a barnyard to that of a factory-raised chicken to get the point. The liver of a healthy chicken is pinkish-red and shiny. The liver of a factory-raised chicken is dull brown-to-gray, green around the edges, and may contain tumors.

The opposition argues that speciesism is not only plausible and logical, but essential for right conduct. They assert that there is a great moral difference between human animals and other animals. No animal has the value that a human being has. Animal pain does not bear as much moral weight as human pain. They argue that equating speciesism with racism and sexism is ridiculous, unfounded, and morally offensive (LaFollette & Shanks, 1996). Animal liberationists, on the other hand, feel that the comparison is apt because it forces humans to focus on their tendency...

Our ancestors did evil things -- not because they were evil people -- but because they did not question conventional wisdom. We need to be careful that we do not repeat that mistake in our treatment of animals. True, not all speciesism is completely indefensible, but speciesism and racism are sufficiently similar so that we cannot dismiss the similarities as errors in logic.
There is nothing to stop us from deciding to exploit animals for food or clothing, but we do need to be certain that we make that decision from a non-speciest standpoint and that we take the interests of the animals into consideration. These domesticated animals have been with human beings for about 10,000 years. The deal was that we would care for them, protect them from predators, and provide a decent life for them. In return, the animals would give up their lives at some point to provide us with food. But agribusiness has broken this covenant. While the idea of producing mass quantities of low-cost food is not in itself evil, innocent animals cry for reform and ethically defensible treatment. Listen. Can't you hear them calling?

References

Animal rights and animal welfare: The theoretical origins of new welfarism: Accessed 4/24/06: http://www.animal-law.org/library/araw_iii.htm.

Atlantic Monthly (2005). If pigs could swim, 296 (2), 134, 136-139.

Scully, M. (2003). Dominion: The power of man, the suffering of animals, and the call to mercy. Boston: St. Martin's Press.

DeGrazia, D. (2003). Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

LaFollette, H. And Shanks, N. (1996). The origin of speciesism. Philosphy [PDF version]: http://www.stpt.usf.edu/hhl/papers/species.htm.

Spira, H. (2005). Less meat, less misery: Reforming factory farms. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, 11, Spring, 19-44.

Singer, P. (1979). Practical ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ethics