Dairy Farming is Inconsistent with Modern Western Ethical Norms

Resolved: Dairy farming is a form of animal cruelty too severe to be considered consistent with modern Western ethical norms.OverviewPro is tasked with proving that dairy farming is inconsistent with modern ethical norms. Con must prove the two are consistent. The debate will consist of 4 rounds. My (Pro) opening remarks will span rounds 1 and 2. Round 3 will be reserved for discussing the arguments which will arise out of rounds 1 and 2. Round 4 is reserved for conclusions, summary and analysis allowing for no new arguments.Definitions Cruelty: Mistreatment or neglect that causes pain and suffering. Dairy farming: The use of cows to produce milk in modern, Western, industrialized milking operations. Ethical norms: Conventionally held beliefs about what is and isn't appropriate action regarding the well-being of sentient animals (animals capable of suffering).Note on DefinitionsThe definitions above will remain fixed throughout the debate. The phrase "ethical norm" is defined above and thus will remain fixed, though, what constitutes "Western ethical norms" is open to dispute. I will explicate and defend the following definition of this phrase and, if Con wishes, he or she my challenge my definition.Western Ethical NormsThe phase "Western ethical norms" refer to the ethical norms characteristic of and subscribed to by most Westerners. This section details modern Western ethical norms in order to contrast them with industrialized milk production.Public Sentiment in Response to AbuseOccasionally, undercover video documenting the practices of animal farms is released by undercover investigators. Public attitudes about animal cruelty can be ascertained through observing the public's response to these videos.In a notable example, after a 2011 ABC investigation into Indonesian slaughterhouses, which showed animal being mistreated, the Australian government suspended the exports of live cattle to Indonesia until it was satisfied that the mistreatment had ended. The government had acted in response to "public revulsion and outrage", despite the warnings from farmers that the ban would "destroy many rural livelihoods". Beef sales were down by 15 percent[1].When video was released of egg producers routinely grinding live male chicks in order to dispose of them, the YouTube footage quickly went viral and lead many to swear off commercial egg consumption[2][3]. (Note: Male chicks from the species of chickens used for egg production are worthless to industry so hatcheries develop methods for quick disposal.)It can be seen in both of these instances that mainstream society is clearly opposed to the mistreatment of animals on ethical grounds to the extent that dietary behaviors change and animal industries are forced to suffer financially in response to public and governmental actions.Public Sentiment as Manifested in LawIn democratic countries, where legislators are chosen by the majority, it is possible to obtain the general sentiments of its people by examining its laws. The laws in Western countries show a clear interest in protecting the welfare of animals.Inflicting unnecessary suffering on animals has for the most part been criminalized in the West. For example, in most Western countries, veterinarians are not permitted to declaw cats [4][5][6][7] (a cruel procedure which actually cuts off the last joint of toe bones). In many western European countries, e.g., Germany[8], Italy[9] and the UK[10], harming or killing an animal can result in imprisonment. In Switzerland, the government appoints lawyers to represent the interests of animals in cases involving animal cruelty[11]. In the US, 46 out of the 50 states have enacted felony penalties to protect animals against cruelty[12]. The provinces and territories of Canada have similar anti-cruelty laws[13].These laws prove that Westerners are able to empathize with the suffering of their fellow animals, and are willing to work through legal and legislative avenues in order to ensure animal wellbeing and to punish offenders. Animal welfare is not simply an idle concern but, rather, a Western ideal, truly valued and supported by tax payer money.Pre-slaughter Treatment of Dairy CowsBefore dairy cows are slaughtered for their meat they are forced to endure a life of intense emotional and physical pain. The following is an overview of farm life for dairy cows.Confinement, Diseases and Tail DockingCows in Western countries spend their lives in dairy factories chained by the neck and confined to tiny stalls[14]. In overcrowded feedlots they stand in their urine and feces and eat out of conveyor belts.In these squalid conditions, dairy cows are highly susceptible to diseases such as mastitis, endometrosis, digital dermatitis, milk fever, ketosis, and hoof and hock lesions[15]. Rather than pay the cost for acceptable living conditions, farm managers use antibiotics to treat these diseases.They also use tail docking, i.e., they simply cut off the cow's tail[16]. The overwhelming majority of farms use no anesthetic for this procedure[17].Dairy farms survive by extracting the maximum amount of milk from cows as possible. Cows are milked 10 months out of the year, including the seven month period during pregnancy. The stress of being overworked, in addition to the squalid living conditions, causes lameness and mastitis[18].High-energy, low fiber diets, intended to boost milk production, contributes to disease as well. Cows must endure ketosis, acetonaemi, acidosis, lameness, laminitis and sever fatigue as a result of these unnatural diets[18].Lameness is particularly common in dairy cows. Hoof tissue infections (foul-in-the-foot), along with standing on concrete, in diluted excrement, for long stretches of time causes hooves to soften which leads eventually to lameness. When a cow is no longer able to walk she is termed a "downer". Downers are considered worthless and tied to tractors to be drug over concrete and put into trucks before being killed[18].I will conclude my opening remarks in round 2. 1 http://www.bbc.co.uk... 2 http://boingboing.net... 3 http://www.sfgate.com... 4 http://www.animallaw.info... 5 http://www.animallaw.info... 6 http://www.ris.bka.gv.at... 7 http://www.sfgate.com... 8 http://bundesrecht.juris.de... 9 http://www.camera.it... 10 http://en.wikipedia.org... 11 http://www.guardian.co.uk... 12 http://www.aldf.org... 13 http://www.aldf.org... 14 http://books.google.com... 15 The Ethics of What We Eat, Peter Singer and Jim Mason (page 57) 16 http://blogs.abcnews.com... 17 http://extension.wsu.edu... 18 http://books.google.com...