| 1ab) Based on my experiences, I am prepared to discount the mental suffering of broiler chickens. I would not do the same for cows (or pigs). This is based on my beliefs about their intelligence, coupled with their lifespans. Would it impact your moral calculus if we artificially retarded broiler chicken's intelligence? 1c) To me, the carbon and land use impacts dominate the direct ethical costs. With a ~1:4 carbon footprint ratio of chicken:beef, and taking into account my (1ab) opinion, that's enough to offset the individual mind count concern. 2) I value animal life conditions in a net utilitarian manner. Providing humans sustenance and pleasure in the form of edible protein is weighed against animal conditions. 3) What are the consequences of making an incorrect decision that cause you to weigh the 10% so heavily? 4) Including the qualifying "if you eat meat" phrase in my quote and the context of the comment thread (organic, chemical / drug use), I think my statement is pretty clear. To expand, "If you eat meat, the most ethical thing you can do is support a chicken producer who attempted to eliminate mass-dosing with antibiotics from their entire production chain." -- You'd probably be interested in Peter Singer (see updated copies of Animal Liberation) and the debate between absolute, preference, and hedonistic varieties of utilitarianism. |