Dairy Farming is Inconsistent with Modern Western Ethical Norms

The claim that it causes harm is correct, when we give these specific scenarios (which is misleadingly vivid), however, the fact of the matter is, in modern western ethics, the wants of many outweigh the needs of the few, or the strong's ethics takes precedence. My argument is as follows: The strong have dominion over the weak. Humans are stronger than animals. Therefore, humans have dominion over animals. Second frame -- Humans have dominion over animals. Stewardship(a) is optional. Therefore, humans do not require to be stewards of animals OR Some humans believe they have stewardship rather than dominion over animals. Therefore, the reverse is also true. Third frame -- Humans have dominion over animals. Some Humans do not require to be stewards over animals. Western culture is capitalistic. Therefore, the need for cheap foodstuffs take precedence over the ethical desire for animal safety. Fourth Frame -- Some humans believe they have stewardship over animals. These humans will prefer to eat ethically acceptable foodstuffs. We live in a Capitalistic environment. Therefore, there will be a market for ethically acceptable foodstuffs. Fifth and Penultimate Frame -- We live in a Capitalistic moral structure. We live (loosely) to Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs. Therefore, there will be some who cannot fulfil the physiological need of food. Sixth and Final Frame -- Some western people cannot fulfil the physiological need for food. The "some" is a large minority (e. g. more than a thousand). They believe that acceptable morals do not take precedence over survival. Therefore, people eat cheap, if inethical, food. Therefore, there is a market for inethical food. Therefore, inethical food is constistent with Western morals. So, my argument simplified is as follows:Westerners live in a capitalist society (P1) Westerners live in either North American or Western European culture (just to make sure we have a geographic location down, so we're not bringing up, say, North Korea). (P2)Westerners live (loosely) to Maslow's Heirarchy of needs (P3)Some westerners believe we do not believe we have a stewardship of animals (P4)It is cheaper to not have stewardship over animals (P4.1)Those who do not believe in stewardship where they are neutral will decide on issues other than ethical acceptability of the animal treatment (P4.2)When we live in a Capitalist society, and some people do not believe we have stewardship over animals, there is a market for those who do not believe we have a stewardship of animals (L1)It is cheaper to be inethical, as there are less costs (L2). Therefore, some Westerners will choose inethical behaviour in favour of cheaper product (C). Therefore, the ethics of westerners are poor or non-existent(C2)Therefore, the consistency of inethical behaviour means it is consistent with Western Norms. We live in either a capitalist society, or a progressive society, where private businesses or corporations have control over their own prices to some extent, and contrast to state owned businesses. [1]. This is inarguably true. The second premise is for clarification only. Give an alternative if you so wish. We live, at least loosely, to Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs[2]. This means that there is a loose structure to how our motivation or choice is made. It is not strict, but loosely true. It means that in a choice between starving to death and commiting adultery, the majority of people will commit adultery. In this scenario, it means that people will choose inethical food over indomitable cost, being pushed into poverty, or just preferring the taste. The statement that some westerners do not believe they have stewardship is self-proving. If I do not believe I have to look after animals, then I do not believe in stewardship. The statement that it is cheaper(b) is also true in the following citations giving proof of:. http://groceries.asda.com...http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk...http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk...The sources show it is cheaper to get inorganic milk. People will choose the lower cost over the more expensive milk. Inorganic milk will always also be more expensive; if you want why, petition the information, and I will explain when I have more words. The logic in this argument is solid, from my perspective. The argument that it is inconsistent with already existing ethics implies there is a contradiction. We draw our Western ethics from Law and government on the whole. Most people act within the Law because it is the Law, not for other issues. The fact that the laws are inethical means that "The ethics of dairy farming is consistently poor". This means that modern western ethical norms are disagreeing with your opinion. You must justify how you know perfectly what the modern western ethical norms are before saying they disagree with them. Your claim shows that it is inethical by your standard. I'm sure a starving man would disagree. I hope to go into more depth of the psychology of the Law, and threaten the position of what moral standards are, in regards to whether they are consistent with the poor behaviour will justify my position. Thank you. a. Stewardship, meaning we have an active moral duty to look after animals. I am not fulfilling the requirements of stewardship when I don't beat up animals whenever I see them (although I kill flies in my room for just being there. .. :P). Stewardship is active, and passive actions are not fulfilling stewardship. This is a shorthand, and may not be the exact definition, but it is a quick way of saying what i want to say, and I have explained the meaning employed. b. economically cheaper. Saves money. Saves opportunity costs. etc.1. . http://dictionary.reference.com...;2. . http://tabacco.blog-city.com...;