Industrial Farming is Not Cruel to Animals

Hsiao, Timothy

doi:10.1007/s10806-017-9652-0

Cited by 29 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The main reason for was animal cruelty followed by self-reported lactose intolerance among other reasons (Figure 1). Today, there are several critics of the animal production systems and they are based on cruel and inhumane practices (Hsiao, 2017; Vargas-Bello-Pérez et al, 2017). Another reason that hinders milk consumption were nutritional recommendations, for example, lactose intolerance and the cholesterol content of milk were identified as two major factors (Prado et al, 2008) related to the decrease in milk consumption and the development and production of non-dairy beverages.…”

Section: Consumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors affecting consumption of retail milk in Chile

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to characterize Chilean consumers of commercial fluid milk and determine if sociodemographic characteristics, knowledge and/or perception on nutritive components of milk affect its consumption. A face-to-face interview was conducted through a stratified random sampling with 501 persons in the Province of Santiago, Metropolitan Region, Chile. The interviews were conducted at the entrance of major supermarkets from 5 different municipalities of the Province of Santiago. Interviews were performed from 10.00 h a.m to 13.00 h p.m. and from 15.00 hours to 17.30 h p.m. every day. Sixteen percent of respondents declared not consuming milk due to animal cruelty followed by self-reported lactose intolerance among other reasons. The most consumed types of milk were whole (25 %), semi-skimmed (24 %) and skimmed (25 %) followed by other types. The majority of respondents that consume milk declared to do it at home (93 %; n = 393), while the rest (7 %; n = 30) declared to consume milk elsewhere (at a coffee shop, restaurant, as a guest, etc.). Participants declared to make their purchase by prioritizing price followed by brand, type of milk, expiration date, nutritional information, packaging, and milk origin. Respondents (86 %) declared to know some nutritional benefits from drinking milk: 47.6 % said that milk was important due to its mineral supply, followed by supply of vitamins (17 %), proteins (17.1 %), fat (13.5 %), sugars (4.5 %) and other components (0.4 %). Most of the answers were associated in some degree with sociodemographic factors. Overall, women declared to consume more skimmed milk whereas, males declared to consume in first place whole milk. Respondents between 18-35 years old declared to consume skimmed and whole milks, while respondents with more than 55 years declared to consume fortified milk followed by semi-skimmed. Consumption of skimmed milk was higher in the high-income socioeconomic class whereas the low-income socioeconomic class resulted in higher consumption of whole milk.

show abstract

Section: Consumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors affecting consumption of retail milk in Chile

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As Carruthers has pointed out, "almost any legitimate, non-trivial motive is sufficient to make [an] action separable from a generally cruel or insensitive disposition" (Carruthers 2002, 159; see also Fischer 2018, 253). Even factory farming and industrial slaughter, arguably the greatest moral atrocities committed against animals in our time, are not cruel, strictly speaking (Hsiao 2017). That is, people engage in these practices without taking any pleasure in the perception of suffering.…”

Section: Substantive Shortcomings Of Kant's Accountmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Case Against Kant’s ‘Indirect Duty’ Approach

Müller

2022

The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter presents a critical overview of the debate about Kant’s ‘indirect duty’ approach to animal ethics. According to Kant’s view, we have no duties ‘towards’ animals, but only ‘regarding’ them. Specifically, we have a duty to cultivate our capacity for sympathy and gratitude in our interactions with animals. Philosophers have advanced two main lines of objection against this view: First, it contains a contradiction, secondly, it is too weak in its demands. The chapter reconstructs the debate and argues that Kantian defences against these objections have not been sufficient. It adds the novel argument that Kant’s view also fails to be helpful in the way Kantian philosophy is supposed to be, since it undermines trust in ordinary moral feelings rather than reinvigorating it.

show abstract

“…In his article "In defence of eating meat", Hsiao argues that experiencing pain by animals is in itself not sufficient to make the killing and eating of animals a moral problem and neither is sentience sufficient to confer moral standing [27]. He argues that to qualify for moral status, a creature should instead possess a fairly high degree of rationality [62]. As animals assumedly lack the "capacity for rational agency", they should not be granted moral status.…”

Section: The Philosophical Point Of Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In response, Bruers and others have lodged a number of objections against Hsiao's argument [63,64] by claiming that the sentience and well-being of creatures are in fact sufficient for moral standing and thus that all sentient beings deserve to be free from harm [65]. The debate continues among philosophers, without a conclusion (e.g., [62,66]). From a consumer point of view, many consumers recognize that animals' minds make them similar to humans in a morally important way.…”

Section: The Philosophical Point Of Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer Moral Dilemma in the Choice of Animal-Friendly Meat Products

Lin-Schilstra

Fischer

2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More and more consumers, at least in Western developed countries, are attentive to the sustainability aspects of their food, one of which concerns animal welfare. The conflict of harming an animal for the joy of eating meat causes a moral dilemma, affecting consumers’ reactions to, and choices of, animal-friendly products. This systematic review identified 86 studies from Scopus and Web of Science. The review outlines: (1) What are the personal antecedents among consumers regarding moral conflicts?; (2) In what situation do moral conflicts occur in consumer food choice?; (3) How do consumers emotionally experience the moral dilemma?; (4) How do consumers resolve moral conflicts over animal products? Researchers have studied personal factors and situational factors that arouse consumers’ moral dilemma and how the dilemma is solved, during which emotions and dissonance come into play. When synthesizing these findings into a comprehensive model, we notice that the current research is lacking on how personal factors change and interact with situations, which limits the understanding of the real-life context of consumers’ moral dilemma as well as their choices of animal-friendly products. More in-depth studies are needed to find situational factors that contribute to this complex psychological process.

show abstract

Industrial Farming is Not Cruel to Animals

Cited by 29 publications

References 21 publications

Factors affecting consumption of retail milk in Chile

Factors affecting consumption of retail milk in Chile

The Case Against Kant’s ‘Indirect Duty’ Approach

Consumer Moral Dilemma in the Choice of Animal-Friendly Meat Products

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About