Introduction - Killing Happy Animals: Explorations in Utilitarian Ethics - page 9

Apparently, it is worthy of our moral consideration. If the animal counts
morally, however, why do we only have to protect its well-being and not
its life? This seems strange. As I indicated, in the Dutch debate about
the future of agriculture, the term 'animal-friendly animal husbandry'
is used in order to indicate the moral aim of the transformation of the
sector. It is claimed that animal production can be 'entirely animal-
friendly'. Isn't 'animal-friendly animal husbandry' a paradox in terms?
Can the practice of routinely using and killing animals rightly be called
'animal-friendly' at all? Are our moral duties towards animals compat-
ible with the routine killing of animals for food production?
This is what the initiatives striving for animal-friendly animal produc-
tion suggest. Recently an overview has been published about the welfare
of pigs in different husbandry systems. The title, which is Welfare of Pigs
from Birth to Slaughter , reveals that welfare considerations are discussed
within the practice of pig husbandry, rather than being used to ques-
tion this practice. 22 Similarly, the title and aim of the above-mentioned
initiative 'Stop wrong meat' point to the underlying assumption that
there is also 'right meat'. In other words, animal husbandry as such is
not the problem, only the unnecessary suffering of animals is. Equally,
the Party for the Animals agitates against intensive animal production,
but not explicitly against animal production as such. In the same vein,
the folder of Pigs in Peril does not say: 'Don't eat meat at Christmas'. The
organisation condemns 'abuses' in slaughterhouses, such as poor anes-
thetization, rather than slaughterhouses as such. The general under-
standing of 'avoiding unnecessary suffering' tends to accept animal
husbandry as a given. It does not question whether animal production
as such is 'unnecessary'.
Opposing intensive animal husbandry rather than animal production
as such may be a strategic choice for people who ultimately would like
to see an end to all animal production. Yet, it seems that many people
do honestly believe that it is morally permissible to use and kill animals
in animal husbandry, provided that the animals have 'happy lives'. Even
if animal-friendly animal husbandry is promoted for strategic purposes,
it is worth exploring whether this ideal is defendable. After all, people
and organizations that make moral claims can be challenged to defend
these claims. In this case, a lack of any plausible and coherent defence
will cause problems, and the strategy might not prove successful in the
long run.
So, the ideal of animal-friendly animal husbandry seems to be broadly
accepted, but there is also something conspicuous about it. It is there-
fore interesting to take a critical look at this ideal.