The Replaceability Argument - Killing Happy Animals: Explorations in Utilitarian Ethics - page 53

(Even the anaesthesia causes considerable pain.) Organic cows (not
Demeter cows, though) are usually de-horned. 9 This is done with anaes-
thetics. Still, the treatment is at least stressful. Furthermore, the fact
that dehorning is necessary in order to avoid injuries among the cows
(and save space) might indicate problems with their housing or treat-
ment more generally. Dairy cows are made pregnant every year in order
to be milked. The calves are taken away from the cows after a short
period of time, while calves would naturally suckle for 2-6 months. The
separation of cow and calf is highly distressing for the animals, due to
the strong maternal bond and the strong nursing need of the calf. 10 In
general, even organic animals are selectively bred and live in more or
less unnatural conditions. Expressions of species-specific behaviour are
restricted, and all this is likely to influence their health and welfare in a
negative way. Farmed animals are often sick also in conditions of organic
farming, as the need for antibiotics and other medications shows. 11 So,
it is open for discussion, whether any farmed animal, even in organic
animal husbandry, has an overall pleasant life, after all.
In any case, the current systems can be ameliorated with respect to
animal welfare, for instance, by stopping the castration of pigs, improving
the housing, stopping the dehorning of cows, and by keeping the calves
together with the cows. Some infringements on animal welfare seem to
be linked to animal production as such. However, there might be systems
of animal production that are compatible with each animal's lifetime
welfare being positive. After all, the animals do not need to be extremely
well off in order for the Replaceability Argument to be applicable. Their
welfare just needs to be better than neutral. Therefore, let us assume
for the remainder of this topic that forms of animal-friendly animal
husbandry can meet the first condition of the Replaceability Argument.
4.2 What about unbalanced negative (side-) effects?
What about the third condition, which requires that the killing does not
have any unbalanced negative (side-) effects? Current methods of killing
are very likely to have negative side effects. For instance, the killing
often causes fear, discomfort and pain for the animal that is killed due
to the situation in the slaughterhouse and the transport. The killing
might cause suffering for others, e.g., the animal's mother as in the case
of the male calf that is taken away and killed. It seems to be unlikely that
by other husbandry systems, negative (side-) effects can completely be
avoided. Negative effects can in principle be compensated by the greater
happiness of the animal that replaces the first one. Yet, in the case of
animal husbandry, this is very unlikely to happen. It is unlikely that