Perdue Farms: Ethics, Animal Welfare, and Utilitarianism
This paper examines the ethical dimensions of Perdue Farms' chicken factory farming practices, arguing that the company's advertising — which promotes cage-free, humane, and antibiotic-free raising — is misleading and contradicted by documented inhumane conditions. Drawing on utilitarianism and virtue ethics, the paper contends that Perdue's emphasis on profit over animal welfare is ethically indefensible. The author argues that ethical frameworks must extend to animals and the natural world, not merely to human stakeholders. The paper also addresses counterarguments asserting that animal interests are subordinate to shareholder returns, refuting them on the grounds that consumer health and corporate integrity are directly tied to how animals are raised and treated.
- Introduction: Advertising, Ethics, and Perdue Farms: Perdue's misleading advertising and utilitarian ethical framing
- Inhumane Conditions and Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence of inhumane farming and CSR failures
- Virtue Ethics as an Alternative Moral Framework: Virtue ethics proposed as a complementary moral solution
- Counterarguments: Stakeholder Interests and Animal Rights: Objections based on shareholder returns and animal status
- Rebuttal: Human Standards, Consumer Health, and Ethical Accountability: Refuting counterarguments via consumer health and ethical standards
- Conclusion: Respect for Life and Ethical Business Practice: Utilitarianism and virtue ethics united in a call for respect
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper clearly anchors its argument in two named ethical frameworks — utilitarianism and virtue ethics — and applies both consistently to the specific case of Perdue Farms, giving the analysis philosophical grounding.
- It anticipates and engages a counterargument (that animal interests are subordinate to shareholder returns) and systematically refutes it, strengthening the paper's persuasive structure.
- The pivot to consumer health as an argument for humane farming is effective: it reframes animal welfare not as sentimentality but as a direct business and public health concern, making the ethical case harder to dismiss.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates the technique of applying ethical theory to a real-world corporate case study. Rather than discussing utilitarianism or virtue ethics in the abstract, the author operationalizes each framework — asking what utilitarian calculus actually demands when animals are included as moral patients, and what virtuous character would require of corporate leadership. This move from theory to application is central to applied ethics writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a thesis grounded in a specific company's practices and links them to a named ethical theory. It then presents evidence of wrongdoing, proposes an alternative ethical model, raises and rebuts a counterargument, and closes with a broader philosophical reflection on respect for life. This classic five-part argumentative structure — claim, evidence, alternative, objection/rebuttal, conclusion — is well-executed and appropriate for undergraduate ethics coursework.
Introduction: Advertising, Ethics, and Perdue Farms
Perdue Farms' practices are in question for being inhumane. Its form of advertisement is deceitful and constitutes false advertising, designed to instill trust in the company's ethics and chicken factory farming process. Its products are promoted as chickens that are raised cage-free, on an all-vegetarian diet, with no animal by-products, no antibiotics ever, and humanely raised (CompassionUSA, 2014). It is important to the company that consumers perceive its farm-raising process as humane as possible. Perdue operates under the utilitarian ethical theory, which holds that "an action is morally right if the consequences of the actions are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone" — in other words, that ethical decisions are those that benefit the majority of people (Fieser, 2015). This paper argues that, in spite of its advertising, Perdue Farms' farming practices are inhumane.
The solution to the moral issues currently plaguing Perdue Farms can be found in the ethical theory of utilitarianism — the same theory under which the company ostensibly operates. In this instance, however, the word "everyone" (Fieser, 2015) should include the chickens themselves. The favorable consequences of doing so will greatly exceed the unfavorable ones if more emphasis is placed on humane process from day one. It is not only people who are impacted by the utilitarian principle; animals are impacted as well — indeed, all of nature is — and this should be considered whenever questions of ethics arise. Is Perdue acting ethically with regard to nature, and to chickens in particular? The answer is no.
Inhumane Conditions and Corporate Social Responsibility
Chicks raised in chicken factories are being abused and treated inhumanely. The fact that Perdue's chickens are living and lying in their own feces demonstrates the company's lack of care for the animals it farms and reflects continued inhumane practices by Perdue and its contract farmers. Chicks live in their own feces and vomit (CompassionUSA, 2014; Mercy for Animals, n.d.). Perdue Farms also participates in irresponsible farming by raising chickens that grow at such an alarming rate that their own limbs cannot support the weight of their bodies (CompassionUSA, 2014). As one perspective notes, animal interests count and deliberate cruelty is wrong, but those interests are too easily overridden by human economic interests — for example, in producing meat cheaply (WilliamsCollege, 2009). These horrific conditions speak volumes about the moral compass of Perdue's leadership, which has effectively placed profits before the responsibility of raising farm animals with care.
As a farm industry leader, Perdue has a responsibility to lead the way in terms of corporate social responsibility (CSR) — what companies do when they want to demonstrate sensitivity to environmental and humane issues that matter to society. Animal welfare is an issue that should be important to a company like Perdue, especially as more and more consumers move toward adopting an organic or free-range way of life, in which food — whether plant or animal — is certified as being free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and abusive farming tactics.
Virtue Ethics as an Alternative Moral Framework
As a moral solution to the troubles faced by Perdue Farms, virtue ethics would serve as a strong secondary framework. Virtue ethics, as defined in the course text, is "the view that morality is grounded in the virtuous character traits that people acquire" (Fieser, 2015). If Perdue Farms leadership had acquired the moral characteristics required to operate a humane operation, they would either solve the issues they currently face or avoid them altogether. In a corporation that touches so much of the population, however, there may be little time to wait for character to develop organically. Utilitarianism is a framework that any leader can apply to a corporation without lengthy training — and Perdue Farms has not fully or properly utilized it.
Proper application of utilitarian theory would ensure that the majority — including the chickens — benefit from the corporation's operations. A virtue ethics approach would similarly ensure that Perdue acts responsibly toward all forms of life, prioritizing a humane system of business over the pursuit of maximum return achieved through disorder in the lives of the animals it raises.
Conclusion: Respect for Life and Ethical Business Practice
In conclusion, what this essay has attempted to show is that companies have a responsibility to act favorably toward one and all — whether human or animal, environment or man-made entity. Respect for life, for creations, for one another, and for nature is so pivotal and important in how we all get along that for a company to not show it is like a child misbehaving in school and yet expecting to be rewarded at the end of the day regardless. For its own sake, a company should respect life and cultivate a spirit of mission within its ranks that upholds this idea of respect. Philosophers through the ages have recognized how important it is to be respectful toward life, whether they have identified it as karma or as charity — it is always the same idea. Respect for life wins hearts and minds and contributes to one's own standing. Disrespect leads to contention, hurt, obstacles, and strife.
Thus, a utilitarian system of philosophy can go hand-in-hand with a virtue ethics approach — because at root, what is good for one is also good for the whole. Each individual is a member of a larger society and world, and an entity that seeks only to profit for itself, without benefiting its neighbor, cuts itself off from society and treats that neighbor as something to be exploited. One should not profit at the expense of one's neighbor, but rather alongside one's neighbor. In the case of Perdue, the company can profit alongside the consumer by raising chickens humanely and offering a healthy product for eating. In this manner, the company would demonstrate respect for life and an adequate, effective philosophical and ethical approach to business. By putting life and people before profits — as both responsible corporate leadership and ethical philosophy demand — Perdue would benefit, because virtue breeds success.
References
Fieser, J. (2015). Introduction to business ethics [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from ]/910345/Appendices.pdf
Regan, T. (1985). The case for animal rights. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals (pp. 13–26). Retrieved from http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/regan03.htm
Singer, P. (1989). All animals are equal. In T. Regan & P. Singer (Eds.), Animal rights and human obligations (pp. 148–162). Retrieved from http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/phil1200%2CSpr07/singer.pdf
Solotaroff, P. (2013, December 10). In the belly of the beast. Rolling Stone. Retrieved from http://www.rollingstone.com/feature/belly-beast-meat-factory-farms-animal-activists
Stathopoulos, A. S. (2010). You are what your food eats: How regulation of factory farm conditions could improve human health and animal welfare alike. Legislation and Public Policy, 13, 407–444.
Mercy for Animals (n.d.). Perdue workers caught on hidden camera stomping on birds [Video file]. Retrieved from
CompassionUSA. (2014, December 3). Chicken factory farmer speaks out [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/YE9l94b3x9U
deWaal, F. (2011, November). Frans de Waal: Moral behavior in animals [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals#t-390893
Ebert, R. [Rainer Ebert]. (2008, March 15). Carl Cohen: Why animals do not have rights 1/6 [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/kbk7xY9t-UQ
Ebert, R. [Rainer Ebert]. (2008, March 16). Tom Regan: Animal rights — An introduction 1/5 [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/fTNNJspZXA4
WilliamsCollege. (2009, December 14). Peter Singer: "The ethics of what we eat" [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/UHzwqf_JkrA
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.