Abstract

Vaguely defined but powerful Food Movement, in addition to organizations such as the Humane Society of the United States, have been the most vocal and influential supporters of this humane animal agriculture position. Another position mostly supported by animal advocates, and informed by academic philosophers argues that the only morally consistent response to industrial animal agriculture is to stop eating animal products altogether. Highlighting the omnivore's contradiction and pushing for an answer to it is an attempt to start the process of seeking a deeper justification for the prospect of humane animal agriculture. Philosophers have made many such cases, but two dominate: utilitarianism and rights theory. Principled objections from utilitarian's and animal rights theorists have presented strong arguments against all forms of farmed-animal exploitation, up to and including slaughtering a well-treated animal for food do not need. Naturally, most people find a utilitarian justification for violent cannibalism to be absurd.