Philosophical Vegan Forum

How to respond to a statement that if we give less money to factory farms, they won't have enough money for anesthetics?
I just wanted to know what other vegans think about that. It's just so stupid that you can't even give a sensical answer, but my mother seems to actually believe that that follows! When she saw how terribly animals are treated in pet-shops, she bought two hamsters to save them (and naturally, gave them money to buy more hamsters that will be treated just as badly). I just don't know how to convince her that she is wrong about it without hurting her feelings. Do you know how?

teo123 wrote:How to respond to a statement that if we give less money to factory farms, they won't have enough money for anesthetics?

Unless she can prove it, it's nothing more than a logical fallacy. The fallacy committed here is a slippery slope. The problem with this type of argument lies with its assumption that if x happens, then y will happen as a result from it. If it cannot be proven, it does nothing more than leverage fear through emotional argumentation. Emotional argumentation is bad because it appeals to a person's prejudices rather than appealing to evidence. As a result, it's not as honest as a non-emotional argument. The subject of anesthetics is irrelevant because it does not matter if you use anesthetics, the factory farming that's going on is immoral. It's immoral to birth sentient beings for the purpose of collecting their secretions and flesh for taste. It does not matter how comfortable or how painless their lives are, because in the end you're still using meat and dairy to satiate your need for a tasteful diet.

teo123 wrote:It's just so stupid that you can't even give a sensical answer, but my mother seems to actually believe that that follows!

Hmm, it's irrational if she can't prove it. By being irrational, she's lying to herself and using blinders to blind herself. It's sad. She has nobody to blame but herself.

teo123 wrote:When she saw how terribly animals are treated in pet-shops, she bought two hamsters to save them (and naturally, gave them money to buy more hamsters that will be treated just as badly).

Could you explain more? What did she see when she saw how terribly pets were being treated?

teo123 wrote:I just don't know how to convince her that she is wrong about it without hurting her feelings. Do you know how?

Just refute her using evidence and logic. Don't use emotional arguments. If she can't handle logic and reason, that's not your fault.

teo123 wrote:How to respond to a statement that if we give less money to factory farms, they won't have enough money for anesthetics?

They don't use anesthetics. They use antibiotics. And they only use antibiotics to save money.

Factory farms don't do anything for animals out of the goodness of their hearts, they're just companies; they don't care. Giving them less money by buying less meat only means they breed, raise, and kill fewer animals. By no means would they make the animals' lives worse.

teo123 wrote:When she saw how terribly animals are treated in pet-shops, she bought two hamsters to save them (and naturally, gave them money to buy more hamsters that will be treated just as badly).

It's the same reason you should never buy human slaves out of slavery either.

Some people are not intelligent (or perhaps educated) enough to understand concepts of supply and demand, or how the system works.
Just keep trying to explain it, I guess. You know how it works. Maybe use a text book and teach her economics?

teo123 wrote:I just don't know how to convince her that she is wrong about it without hurting her feelings. Do you know how?

It sounds like she doesn't want to think, but just feels bad about things she sees and doesn't care about unseen harm she causes.

When somebody is that profoundly wrong about so much, it may not be possible. You will probably have to hurt her feelings to get the idea across. You may have to shock her out of that bad habit with some harsh criticism.

teo123 wrote:It's just so stupid that you can't even give a sensical answer

You took the words out of my mouth. I'm baffled by the stupidity of that argument.

But, yeah, they don't generally use anesthetics. Like when they cut off the beaks of baby chickens they don't use anesthetic.

Beyond that it's just a bad thought process on a number of levels.

First of all, if they're selling less product, animal abuser industries are more likely to scale back in a more sensible way. They'll perhaps raise fewer animals so their feed and antibiotic costs go down (maybe). Or some of them will just go out of business. Or they'll just make less of a profit. There's just no reason to think that giving these people less money will make them stop using anesthetics because all the evidence shows that they're already cutting as many corners as possible in a way that disregards animal welfare to make money.

Secondly, it's morally fallacious to say that me not paying an animal abuser makes me more responsible for more abuse. That's tantamount to a hostage taker saying that I'm responsible for them hurting hostages if I don't pay up, or like paying the mob protection money. The abuse isn't going to stop if you keep paying them. Ultimately, that's what it is. By paying into that system you are PAYING for abuse. You are directly paying for the destruction of animals. Even if in some fantasy scenario your money makes that system slightly less abusive, you're just splitting hairs. Those animals are still suffering and they're still being killed.

Good luck, op.