Uhh-"O"

     Oprah took on California's proposition 2 which seeks to provide farm animals in confinement with room to turn around, stand up, lie down and fully extend their limbs.  In a series of video-taped vignettes, two systems of production were visited for veal calves, pork production and egg-layers which sought to contrast these systems on the basis of the room provided the animals.  In general, they were reasonable representatives of confinement systems vs more open or free range approaches.  The exception would be the veal video where an atypical confinement system was highlighted which chained animals in small wooden pens that appeared pretty stark.  If passed, the law would not become compelling until 2015 in order to give time for agricultural producers to make the necessary changes.

     Wayne Pacelle of HSUS brought forward an anthropomorphic interpretation on behalf of the animals.  In general the argument which was brought on behalf of more space for the animals was based on an appeal first to natural law (if an animal has legs or wings, it should not be confined in such a way as to prohibit its ability to use them) and then to utilitarianism of the form popularized by Peter Singer.  In short, Utilitarianism is a methodology in ethics which holds that an action must be judged by its final outcome on the satisfaction or pleasure of all those involved.  Singer notably extended the theory to include animals since to confine the measurement of pleasure to just humans would be "speciesism".  While he does not believe that animals cannot be raised for meat, he has in general concluded that modern systems so damage animal utility (pleasure, satisfaction) throughout the production process that they are unacceptable and therefore unethical.

     Matt Kellogg son of long-time and well known pork producer John Kellogg of Illinois represented the modern family farm using gestation crates on their farm in northern Illinois.  He did an admirable job of pointing out the humanity and sincerity of the vast majority of today's pork producers who know their animals and would without question, never impose a system of production which they believe caused pain and diminished the welfare of the animals.

     It was interesting to note that the audience members seemed open to the economic (benefit) argument of modern systems as long as they could be convinced that the industries in question were not overtly harming the animals.  A ludicrous notion that all meat in the U.S. could be raised in systems purporting (on the show) to be "humane" (in the case of pig production, a medium sized outdoor unit) went largely unchallenged as Mr. Pacelle made the claim that an increase in demand for such would lower prices.

     The bottom line is that the meat industries in the United States need to make a fundamental ethical argument for both the consumption of meat and the methods which are used to raise animals in the U.S.  It must be grounded in recognized philosophical and theological argument and it cannot simply start with the notion that it is to be constructed to justify all current practices.  It must inform current and future practices rather than be their public relations defense.  Until such an argument can be made in a compelling way, ground will be lost to counter-vailing ethical arguments that are poorly constructed and easily challenged in ethical theory (but not by science alone).