Is factory farming the moral equivalent to Auschwitz

1
Is factory farming the moral equivalent to
Auschwitz?

• No. Humans have more ability to feel mental and
  physical pain than most animals. However, while
  they are not morally equivalent, they are both
  wrong. That's the important concept.

2
While the Nazi holocaust
and todays abuse of animals are not morally
equivalent, there are useful analogies. In both
cases the number of individuals tortured is
enormous, the treatment of the oppressed is
indescribable, and the possibility of freedom
fully resides in the hands of some
benefactors. In the United States, billions of
animals die each year in structures like death
camps that are hidden from public view. Like the
manufacturers of the Holocaust, animal killers
need a justification to abandon caring for
animals, and they need an industry that
efficiently kills and keeps the blood from
seeping into public consciousness.
3
People who knew.
Isaac Bashevis Singer "There is only one little
step from killing animals to creating gas
chambers a la Hitler and concentration camps a la
Stalin... There will be no justice as long as man
will stand with a knife or with a gun and destroy
those who are weaker than he is." Edgar Kupfer
was imprisoned in Dachau concentration camp in
1940. To read his opinion, click http//www.anim
alliberationfront.com/Philosophy/AbuseLinked/Dacha
u.htm
4
Nazi holocaust survivor
Georges Metanomski, who fought in the Warsaw
Ghetto uprising When I see cages crammed with
chickens from battery farms thrown on trucks like
bundles of trash, I see, with the eyes of my
soul, the Umschlagplatz the spot in the Warsaw
Ghetto where Jews were forced onto trains leaving
for the death camps. When I go to a restaurant
and see people devouring meat, I feel sick. I see
a holocaust on their plates. 
5
Animals in factory farms
"Veal" calves spend their entire life
individually confined to narrow stalls too narrow
for them to turn around in. cartoon video
http//www.noveal.org/forgetaboutit Laying hens
live a year or more in cages the size of a filing
drawer, seven or more per cage, after which they
routinely are starved for two weeks to encourage
another laying cycle. See http//www.MeatYourMeat.
com, http//www.VeganOutreach.org,
http//www.TryVeg.com
6
Hogs Cows
Female hogs are housed for four or five years in
individual barred enclosures ("gestation stalls")
barely wider than their bodies, where they are
forced to birth litter after litter. Until the
recent "Mad Cow" scare, beef and dairy cattle too
weak to stand ("downers") were dragged or pushed
to their slaughter. industry is trying to block
no downer legislation http//www.FarmSanctuary.
org
7
Kosher Slaughter
Kosher slaughter is where an animal is hoisted
and bled to death without prior stunning. Often
joints are ruptured during the hoisting, and the
death is a slow, conscious one.
8
What is wrong with leather if its just a
by-product of slaughter?
Some cows are grown and slaughtered purely for
their skins. Regardless, buying leather products
contributes to the profits of slaughtering cows,
which makes cow products more economically
competitive with vegan products. Which means that
more cow products are sold. Creating more profit.
Which lowers the price again. And on and on
ad-nauseum.
9
Current reality of meat

• Meat producers want the least costly means of
  producing meat for human consumption. If that
  means that animals are made to suffer by that
  process, then, because they are not deserving of
  moral respect, producers do not worry unduly
  about it.
• It might be morally justified to eat meat if that
  is all we had to eat, or if meat were the only
  thing which would properly nourish us, but
  neither of these things is the case.

10
Don't crop harvest techniques lead to the death
of animals?
Accidental deaths cant be compared, morally, to
intentional deaths. Thats like saying, Since
some people die in car accidents, it must be okay
to run over people in my car. In neither case,
that of animals on crop farms or that of people
on the road, should we deliberately take lives.
In both cases we should work to minimize the
number of accidental deaths.
11
What if I made use of an animal that was already
dead?
While it is wrong to purchase animal-based
products, it may be good for animals to use them
if they are already dead. Obviously, this
doesnt justify buying a hamburger because it is
already dead, since more meat will be murdered
to replace it. More practically, this means
that if you are given a leather wallet, you
should use it before you go buy a vegan wallet,
because the vegan wallet would cost money that
could be sent to a no-kill shelter.
Ramifications of actions are usually complex, and
each specific situation requires analysis (please
don't over-analyze if it takes time away from
helping animals or earning money that could help
animals).
12
Hypothetical Is eating meat intrinsically wrong?

• Saying that the mistreatment of animals in the
  meat production process is immoral is one thing,
  saying that eating meat itself is immoral is
  another.
• If we can raise animals for slaughter that do not
  suffer, and which are quickly and painlessly
  killed, then would eating meat morally acceptable?

13
The morality of painless killing

• If it is wrong to kill a person painlessly why it
  is not also wrong to kill an animal painlessly?
• Animals are not as complex as human beings, but
  they live in communities, communicate with one
  another, have ongoing social relationships,
  suffer, and are capable of happiness, as well as
  fear and distress, as we are.

14
Why not?
15
The right to life and painless killing

• If we assume that humans have a right to life -
  it would be wrong to murder a normal, healthy
  human even if it were done painlessly - and it is
  hard to think of any plausible rationale for
  granting this right to humans that does not also
  apply to other animals.
• So what could be the rational basis for saying
  that we have a right to life, but that they
  dont? What could be the rational basis for
  saying that a severely retarded person, who is
  inferior in every important respect to an
  intelligent animal, has a right to life but the
  animal doesnt?

16
The amelioration argument

• The hypothetical amelioration argument If
  animals can be made not to suffer, then they can
  be killed (quickly and painlessly) and eaten.
• The more animals that can be brought to lead
  pleasant lives, the more animals that escape the
  argument from pain and suffering and so may be
  eaten.
• All a concerned individual need do then is to
  look for improvements in factory farming so that
  animals no longer suffer.