Dairy Farming is Inconsistent with Modern Western Ethical Norms

Maybe I should've made this clearer: I am not arguing whether it is ethical or not to treat animals with the misleadingly vivd description you've stated: I am saying that Western ethical norms are not ethical in the first place: there are blatant double standards with western ethical norms and the modern structure of ethical norms promotes the fact that Western ethical norms are inconsistent in nature, and the ethics are consistently coming money first. The metaethics is money-driven. I'll try and rephrase my framework:Our ethical structure is driven by the society we live in (P1) We live in a Capitalistic society (P1.1) We abide loosely to Maslow's heirarchy of needs (P1.2) We do not live in an objective stewardship society (P1.3)Cheaper meat, milk, and other goods that come from animals are non-ethical (by your definition of ethical) (P2) Added value is put on to ethical produce (P2.1) If the added value is removed, the cost is lowered (P2.2)Some western modern people eat nonethical, but cheaper, alternatives to the ethical produce (P3)If some people eat non-ethically, some people do not (L1)If we live in a Capitalist society, and both markets are large enough, then both products will be provided for (L2)If people do not find ethical irresponsibility from eating what you call ethically irresponsible meat, either:a) The morality behind "Modern Western Ethical Norms" is relative and so widespread, that it cannot be used as an umbrella term (C1)b) The moral indignation lies with the consumer, not the practice. If consumers stopped purchasing what you call "inethical" produce, then the market would disappear, and the milking practice would be to your standard. Therefore, the practice, or the mechanics of a Capitalist society's moral problems lie with the consumer, and how the system works is not the process' fault. (C2)Therefore, my first contention isn't with the lack of morals of the practice, it is whether it is consistent. This is a definition you did not state, therefore I shall define it now:"The same throughout in structure or composition[a]". synonymous with exculsively. You may say that you find moral fault with the companies, but that is neither here nor there. What the question does not address is with Modern Western Ethical Norms.(I assume we are using common usage of modern, rather than the zeitgeist of modern time period)There are few strong connections between all western countries. I shall take the definition of westernised to mean culturally, rather than geographically; as the countries following[1]. The first is, of course, that there are humans in charge. This creates an automatic human dominionism over the area. Dominionism is not contradictary to stewardship, however the dominionism means that humans simply own the land, rather than own and look after it. This creates a specific psychology. The psychology I am proposing to create the metaethics is The second is Capitalist society. Corporations decide the majority of the prices. Everything is driven by money. Low costs, high revenue, high profits, luxury goods, etc. are all integral to capitalism. So, my point is not that the process of Dairy Farming is inconsistent with current moral standards, it's that it falls under the realm of a necessity in Capitalism."Capitalism is based on the principle of voluntary association - individuals deal with one another by persuasion and trade rather than physical force. It means that no matter how noble someone thinks his goals are--whether it’s building wind farms or sending other people’s children to college or erecting a bridge to nowhere--he has no right to force them on you. And it means that no matter how misguided someone thinks your goals are, so long as you are peaceful he has no power to stop you from living the kind of life you want to live. "[2]My point is that our morals are based on Capitalism; the fact that no matter how noble your goal is, you cannot force it on someone else. No-one has the right to force their opinion and stop you from living how you want to live. The modern ethical western norm is, essentially, based on freedom. Liberty. Choice.The modern western ethics are based on the fundamentals of Capitalism and freedom. The freedom to, as you've stated, of "egg producers routinely grinding live male chicks in order to dispose of them". Just as the public have the freedom to boycott them. This is the essential point. We can do a practical observation of whether people find this ethical or not; we see what they buy[3]. Co-operative supermarket's figures show us that people still buy inethical prdoucts a lot more than ethical products. This means people will choose the product for reasons other that ethical branding. However, people may still be choosing in regards to ethical products, as people seem to use inethical products if they are not being watched[4] and use ethical products when under scrutiny[4]. The fact that products can be boycotted promotes the fact that people are not ethically minded over money minded. In American history, there was the grape boycott for equal wages[5]; we know they work when a majority believe it should change[6]. Therefore, it stands to reason that the majority of people are not offended by this behaviour. The majority of those who carry modern western ethics, making it the norm, do not have a grudge due to this behaviour. Rebuttal:All of the points lead to the same question. Why is it that these are acceptable? When you say "these are inethical", I'd like to know why. the meta-ethics of the situation is blatant and required. Where do we get what is ethical or not? The farmers would suffer from larger costs, less reinvestment, and lower profits. Farmers in Bhaktivedanta Manor in Hertfordshire charge supermarkets £3 per litre. This would be around $5 in America at current exchange rates. This is being sold to the supermarkets, remember, additional costs such as packaging and travel. Then another 110p (worked from current price of milk) or so would be added for profit.. By comparison, farmers are selling for 29p per litre. This cost would hit the farmers horribly, as well as cause massive short term costs to create "ethical" businesses. The retailers, especially smaller ones, would have much much larger costs, which could easily cause many to stop selling milk altogether. Finally, the extreme cost on the consumer would mean that the average income of ten pounds an hour would be hit by another 3 pound additional cost per week (if the average person requires 2 pints of milk a week)[9]. Why is it that it is not OK to treat animals like this, even when the repurcussions are so negative? In conclusion, it is inconsistent to remove the liberty of choice in the current Western Modern society, meaning the consistency of ethics, based on the fundamentals of choice, stands. Also, as a note: Source 2 contradicts what you wrote (read recc.) you have also not referred to what Westerners believe, nor the motivations. The motivations of ethics is the single most important issue here. Also, for clarity, explain why we ought to look after these animals.Thank you.a. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.wnyc.org...;3. http://www.goodwithmoney.co.uk...;4. http://www.psychologytoday.com...;5. http://library.thinkquest.org...6. http://www.guardian.co.uk...7. http://news.bbc.co.uk...8. http://www.arcresources.org.uk...;9. http://www.netsalarycalculator.net... 10. http://www.farmanddairy.com...;- for tailcutting info