AgoraAn open square of thought

Debate

Animals and Factory Farming

Pigs, cattle and chickens can suffer – science has settled that. So how can it be justified to breed tens of billions of them every year, to confine most of them in factory farms and to kill them for our food?

The premise is no longer in serious doubt. The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness (2024) finds “strong scientific support” for conscious experience in mammals and birds, and takes it to be at least a genuine possibility in all vertebrates, fishes included, and in many invertebrates such as octopuses, crabs and insects. The scale is known too: according to FAO statistics, more than 85 billion land animals were slaughtered for meat in 2024, nine in ten of them chickens, and by an estimate of the Sentience Institute, cited by Our World in Data, about three quarters of all farmed land animals live in factory farms. The FAO records fish only by weight; estimates put their number at around 124 billion farmed and 1.1 to 2.2 trillion wild-caught fish a year. What is genuinely disputed is something else: how much animal suffering weighs against human interests, whether animals have rights or only a claim to humane treatment, whether painless killing wrongs them, and what follows – for law and politics, and for people for whom animal food is a matter of poverty, health or culture. On eating animals as such, philosophers are divided: in the 2020 PhilPapers Survey of almost 1,800 philosophers, 48 per cent inclined to the view that it is permissible in ordinary circumstances, 26 per cent to vegetarianism and 18 per cent to veganism. Explicit defences of industrial farming as it exists today, by contrast, are rare.

Open in the star map

Positions

Equal consideration of interests

Bentham wrote of animals: “The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” Singer builds on this in Animal Liberation (1975; revised as Animal Liberation Now, 2023): a being’s interest in not suffering deserves equal consideration with the similar interests of any other being, and discounting it merely because of species is “speciesism”, a prejudice he compares in structure to racism and sexism. Weighed this way, factory farming clearly fails: against the suffering of billions of animals stand, for most people in affluent societies, chiefly taste and low prices. Singer treats painless killing as the harder question – for animals without a sense of their own future, he argues in Practical Ethics, it may weigh less – but his verdict on factory farming rests on suffering alone.

Held by

Animal rights and abolition

Regan argues in The Case for Animal Rights (1983) that animals who are “subjects-of-a-life” – who have beliefs, desires, memory, a sense of their own future and a welfare that matters to them – have inherent value and therefore rights, just as humans do. Rights cannot be traded off against benefits to others, however large; the question is therefore not how to make factory farming kinder. The goal is not larger cages but empty ones. Gary Francione goes further: as long as animals are legally property, their interests will always lose out against those of their owners, and welfare reforms only make their use look acceptable. For him, any use of sentient animals as resources is unjustified, and veganism is the moral baseline.

Held by

Fellow creatures

Kant held that we owe duties only to rational beings. Korsgaard argues, as a Kantian, against Kant’s own conclusion (Fellow Creatures, 2018). When we value our own good and treat ourselves as ends in ourselves, we are valuing ourselves as animate beings for whom things can go well or badly – and that is something we share with other animals. Consistency therefore requires us to treat them as ends in themselves too. On this basis she rejects not only factory farming but also so-called humane farming: to raise and kill animals in order to eat them is to use them as mere means.

Held by

Capabilities to flourish

Nussbaum extends the capabilities approach beyond the human species (Justice for Animals, 2023): justice requires that each sentient animal have a real opportunity to flourish according to its own characteristic form of life – to move, play, form bonds and be free from pain. Suffering is not the only wrong; thwarting an animal’s significant striving is one too, as when a pregnant sow is kept for weeks in a crate too narrow to turn around in. Because this is a matter of justice, responsibility on her view is collective: it falls to law and politics, not only to the choices of individual consumers.

Held by

Rights only for persons (minority view)

The strongest defence of animal use starts from Kant: duties are owed only to rational beings, who can give themselves the moral law; cruelty to animals is wrong because it hardens us towards humans as well. Contractualists such as Peter Carruthers (The Animals Issue, 1992) give this a modern form: morality consists of the rules that rational agents could agree on, so animals, who cannot take part, have no direct moral standing – duties concerning them arise only from human character and from the feelings of people who care about them. Timothy Hsiao (2017) argues on a similar premise that industrial farming is not in itself cruel. Others who share the premise draw a narrower conclusion: Roger Scruton (Animal Rights and Wrongs, 1996) denied that animals have rights, but held that sympathy and our duties of care rule out battery cages and veal crates, while meat from well-kept animals remains permissible. Among philosophers who work on animal ethics this is now a minority position, and Hsiao’s defence in particular has drawn several replies.

Held by

Read more

As of 10/2026. Summaries for orientation – the sources give the full arguments. · How Agora is made

Open in the star map