Non-valid arguments for maintaining factory farming

Defending intensive livestock farming in an improper way
Factory farming contributes to the economic welfare of a country.
  1. Using economic arguments to justify topics that are ethically unacceptable is immoral.
  2. If the harmful (environmental) effects are included too, the contribution is much smaller. In the Netherlands, for example, factory farming then no longer contributes to the economy at all.
Factory farmers are dependent on this form of farming for their income.
Using economic arguments to justify topics that are ethically unacceptable is immoral. No farmer depends for his or her income on ethically unacceptable work of which the greater part is exported.
Farmers are forced to cooperate in the factory farming industry to earn an income.
Farmers have a free will. If they also have a conscience, then they will choose for a decent farming method. No one in the western hemisphere needs to be hungry.
The law doesn't say that factory farming is illegal, so it is allowed.
Step by step the factory farming industry crossed the line of the morally acceptable. It will take years to counteract this immoral form of farming in a legal way.
If you live in the countryside, then you will have to take the pollution of factory farming for granted.
In the countryside no one has the right to take away the freedom of another being (human or animal). Clean air, land and water is a right for all and an obligation for people living in the countryside.
The government stimulated factory farming in the past and banks have given farmers large credits.
That is correct. It makes the government and the banks responsible for softening financial blows and for the discontinuation and downsizing to zero of the factory farming industry.
Factory farmers have the right to freedom of working method, alongside the right to freedom.
Because factory farmers abuse the basic right of freedom for animals, their working method is illegal.
Animals in factory farming are treated well.
That animals have enough to eat and drink does not mean their well-being is guaranteed, and by no means is it a guarantee for freedom of behavior.
Animals in factory farming are better off than people living in tiny apartments in high rises or working on the continuous line in a factory.
People can choose for how long they want to live and work in these circumstances, animals cannot.
Animals in factory farming are better off than animals in organic or biologic-dynamic farms. There the chances for getting a disease because of being allowed to walk free on the soil are larger.
  1. The fact that only a small amount of animals can be kept is true also for organic farming. If this happens in combination with a meadow that can carry the deposit of fertilizer, the chances for contracting a disease can be neglected.
  2. The factory farming industry uses enormous amounts of antibiotics to prevent diseases.
  3. Disease is natural in a natural environment.
In the bible is written that Man is lord and master over animals; that the animals are there for Man to use.
If you believe, you should also notice that nowhere in the bible it is written that it should be allowed that animals are kept under these circumstances.
In factory farming the well-being of animals is a priority.
For as long as animals cannot express natural behavior, the well-being of animals is minimized.
Animals in factory farming are better off than in free nature.
Open the cage and most animals will walk away to freedom. They obviously choose freedom over security of food.
Animals in factory farming industry show little lack of well-being.
The right to, and the need for freedom is not lost by looking neutral or 'well kept'.
Which fallacy is this? Play the game

Test yourself: which fallacy is this?

Ten statements about animals that you hear all the time. Can you spot the fallacy? After each answer you read why it does not hold.

Play the game →

This article is part of a series on fallacies and demagogy

Some arguments used in debate on the topics in the title simply are invalid. That goes for pro and contra.

We selected a few of the most rigid arguments from different situations and placed an appropriate counterargument.

Because a more clear and honest way of reasoning helps improve the circumstances animals live in. Apart from the specific issues there are the types of arguments in general.

Fallacies are deliberately or accidentally used in a debate.

So be aware of the principles and the integrity of an opponent.

How do you respond to fallacies? Six tips

Give the other person the benefit of the doubt. Start by assuming a misunderstanding, not deliberate deception. Even someone who keeps using fallacies may simply be badly informed or emotionally involved.

  • Mind the context. In a friendly conversation a gentle approach works better than in a formal debate. Adapt to your relationship with the other person and to the aim of the conversation.
  • Stay calm. Fallacies are often meant to stir up emotions. Keep your own emotions in check.
  • Identify the fallacy. Try to understand where the reasoning goes wrong. Do this for yourself, not to catch the other person out.
  • Answer the fallacy. Ask clarifying questions or explain why the argument does not convince you. Avoid technical terms.
  • Stay on topic. Bring the conversation back to what it is about and keep it on a rational level.
  • Be prepared. If you know you will talk to someone who often uses fallacies, gather some facts and arguments beforehand.

See also how to respond to animal-unfriendly behaviour of others.

Non-valid arguments (deceptive arguments) for different groups