Case Analysis – Factory Farms

Case Analysis – Factory Farms

Introduction

The moral problem in the case study of factory farms is that poultry suppliers such as Perdue use unconventional scientific means to increase productivity to make huge sales. The suppliers modify the genetic makeup of the chicken so that they mature faster than usual, ensuring the suppliers have enough stock to meet demand. The modification of the genetic makeup and the injection of chemicals to catalyze growth negatively affect the chicken and pose a health risk to the consumers. However, these suppliers do not care about the negative consequences but only focus on making more sales (Mahler, 2020).  It has been proven that food products that are genetically modified tend to have some adverse health effects on the consumers, but the suppliers have ignored this revelation due to their greediness; they are striving to make more profits from this business.

Thesis statement: The government should regulate the predatory behaviors of business organizations that tend to violate the conventional way of doing business.

Explanation of the thesis

In this discussion, I will defend the view that government should regulate the predatory behaviors of business organizations that tend to violate the conventional way of doing business. The regulatory agencies should hold firms that break the traditional principles accountable for their actions. The genetically modified chicken tends to have some health problems such as abnormal overweight and difficulties in mobility. This treatment violates animal rights and fair competition laws. Poultry suppliers have used this unconventional scientific means for many years because business regulatory and consumer protection agencies have not taken any measures to address this issue (Mishler, 2020). These unscrupulous behaviors by business organizations in the U.S can be attributed to the capitalist system. Capitalism allows competition and lacks regulatory measures to ensure fairness (Utm.edu, 2020). Thus, capitalism provides an environment that encourages such predatory business behaviors where business firms engage in mischievous behaviors in the quest of boosting profits.

Premise 1

The first reason why I support government regulation of competition and predatory behaviors by business organizations is to enhance consumers’ protection. When business firms are left to compete freely without being regulated, they devise competitive mechanisms that may harm the consumers and the entire business environment (Mishler, 2020).    As much as competition is allowed, it should be regulated to ensure that firms produce high-quality and safe products for consumers. When consumers consume genetically modified products and chemically engineered products, they develop some health complications due to the chemicals contained in the products (Mishler, 2020). Therefore, the government and the regulatory agencies must approve some competition mechanisms firms use to ensure that the products produced are safe for human consumption.

Premise 2

The second reason why I support my thesis is to protect animal law. Animal law is a new field that highlights various laws that protect animals’ rights. Animal laws entail wrongful death or injury of animals, veterinary malpractices, and animal cruelty (LClark, 2020). A growing number of states in the U.S. and nations worldwide are enacting animal laws to protect animals from the mentioned acts. However, poultry suppliers such as Perdue and large farms are rearing chickens in an environment that violates animal laws. One of the common animal laws is the good housing law. The law requires that all domesticated animals be housed in decent structures that shelter the animals from the adverse environment (LClark, 2020). In Factory farms, thousands of chickens are reared in small spaces where there is no good ventilation. The congested chicken compartments have a poor environment and can lead to the spread of disease. Moreover, such overcrowded chicken houses are not adequately cleaned, and hence, the chicken is exposed to an unclean environment, which can also cause diseases (Mishler, 2020).  In other words, factory farms and poultry suppliers violate the good housing law in the animal law.

Application of theory and comparison

Virtue theory requires individuals and business firms to identify virtue and desirable characteristics that a morally virtuous person or entity should display. Virtue theory emphasizes that individuals and business firms act morally. Virtue theory asserts that firms should find it necessary to act morally without being monitored or supervised (Sakelariouv, 2015). Under this theory, business firms should see the benefits of working ethically, not be shown the benefits of acting ethically. The theory also emphasizes the role of character and virtue in the moral philosophy requiring that individuals and business organizations not wait to be told or directed to do ethically correct. Instead, individuals and business organizations should be morally responsible by doing what is morally right. When firms are morally responsible, problems such as using shortcuts to make huge profits would not exist. Virtue theory could quickly address the problem rather than the utilitarian theory.

Utilitarian theory is all about maximizing pleasure (Utm.edu, 2020).  The poultry suppliers such as Perdue and the factory farms might be using the utilitarian theory concept to act the way they do. They inject chemicals and modify the genetic makeup of the chicken breeds to speed up the maturing process to make more sales. This theory emphasizes the quest for understanding and living a life of moral character (Sakelariouv, 2015). Therefore, regulatory agencies should aim to enlighten business firms such as Perdue poultry suppliers to engage in morally ethical characters without being monitored (Sakelariouv, 2015).  Business firms should see on their own they need to act morally.

While the utilitarian theory seeks to maximize the benefits of the factory farm, chicken suppliers, and the consumers, the unconventional way they are breeding the chicken would harm the consumers instead of benefiting them (Utm.edu, 2020). Therefore, virtue theory surpasses utilitarian theory because virtue theory approves morally right actions. When business organizations act ethically, no one in the food chain will be harmed. Virtues guide business firms to do what is morally right, meaning that firms are not only required to follow the law, but they are also not required to seek loopholes in the law to engage in acts that could cause harm to other parties at the expense of maximizing profits. Therefore, the moral solution to the problem lies with the virtue theory, which requires that individuals and business firms strive to be morally responsible for acting ethically, not act because it requires them to act ethically. When moral responsibility is instilled in the business organization, the regulatory agencies would have easy work since every organization would be operating within the confines of the law and acting responsibly.

The objection of the thesis

The government and other regulatory agencies are not supposed to regulate business strategies. In the wake of big corporate fraud such as Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, and many others, the U.S. Congress decided to enact strict measures through the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which governs auditing, accounting, and general corporate responsibility. Many people applauded the move by Congress, claiming that the Act would help reduce corporate fraud that was becoming rampant. However, the corporate leaders argued against this move by stating that compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 would be difficult, time-consuming, and ineffective. The reason that was given by those who opposed the move by Congress supports my objection to the government getting much involved in regulating competitive business strategies. Factory farms genetically modify their chicken to speed up their growth to meet market demand because genetically modified foods are allowed in the U.S. Therefore, these farms are not violating any law by using scientific techniques to increase production. Modifying the genetic makeup of the poultry to increase productivity is a competitive business strategy to remain the leader in the market. Before the Factory farms engage in this scientifically driven initiative, they always carry out thorough research on the effects of genetically modified food on consumers. Thus, the bold move by the poultry farms in this strategy means that they must have carried out enough research to establish that the poultry products would not have Anaya harm to the consumers.

Moreover, before any poultry farm engages in such initiatives, they must undergo many health regulations and checks before being given the go-ahead. Therefore, the government should not start micromanaging or regulating the competitive business strategies that the business organizations adopt.

Rebuttal of the objection

I refute the objection to government regulation of competitive business strategies. The main goal of business is to make a profit. The world of business is quite competitive in that every business organization is looking for a means to survive and beat others in the industry. Companies always look for competitive strategies that would enable them to compete effectively and earn more in terms of profits. The act of poultry farms engaging in predatory business practices such as modifying the genetic makeup of the poultry to speed up their maturity is a competitive business strategy. However, it is an unfair business strategy because it leads to negative consequences for the consumers of such products. Therefore, the government must be vigilant of such unethical business practices meant to benefit the business only and cause harm to the consumers and other stakeholders. Consequently, I strongly support the fact that the government and the regulatory agencies need to seal all the loopholes that business organizations may explore to exploit consumers in the quest to make profits. An unregulated business environment can be full of chaos and fraud, and the victim in the whole saga is the consumer.

Closing remarks

The revelation of the poultry farms’ business practices is an essential testament that business regulation in the U.S. is ineffective. Many business organizations go overboard to engage in unethical, predatory business behaviors that are meant to boost their sales and profits but, in the end, harm the consumers. Business organizations can still evade the laws and use selfish business strategies to earn more profits despite the many laws. This calls for more laws and a review of the enforcement of the laws. Enacting the laws and creating many regulatory agencies is not enough. The solution to this challenge is to ensure strict enforcement of the business regulations where firms that are found guilty are punished heavily to discourage other firms from engaging in such unethical behaviors. The rampant business unethical practices are also an indicator that the regulatory agencies are ineffective in carrying out their oversight duty. Suppose the poultry farms can engage in such unethical practices for such a long time without a red flag from the regulatory agencies. In that case, it means they are either lazy in their mandate or these business firms have compromised them. This calls for a complete overhaul of the regulatory agencies merging some to boost their efficiency en effectiveness in oversight matters.

References

Animal Welfare Institute. (2020). Inhumane Practices on Factory Farms. Retrieved from https://awionline.org/content/inhumane-practices-factory-farms

Illing, S. (2016). Ethical arguments won’t end factory farming. Technology might. Retrieved from https://awionline.org/content/inhumane-practices-factory-farms

LClark. (2020).Center for Animal Law Studies. https://law.lclark.edu/centers/animal_law_studies/

Macer D. (2019). Ethical Poultry and the Bioethics of Poultry Production. The journal of poultry science, 56(2), 79–83. https://doi.org/10.2141/jpsa.0180074

Mishler, J. (2020). Despite Perdue’s High Welfare Standards, Some Chickens Can’t Survive 45 Days. https://sentientmedia.org/despite-perdues-high-welfare-standards-some-chickens-cant-survive-45-days/

Sakelariouv, A. (2015). Virtue Ethics and its Potential as the Leading Moral Theory. Student Pulse: Journal quest. Vol. 12 no. 1

Utm.edu. (2020). Act and Rule Utilitarianism. https://iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/

Utm.edu. (2020). Virtue Ethics. https://iep.utm.edu/virtue

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Case Analysis – Factory Farms

In the Week 3 Assignment, you engaged in a case analysis of a current business problem using some of the components of an argumentative essay. In this written assignment, you will write a complete argumentative essay as described in Sections 9.1 and 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Foster, Hardy, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). This essay will include a revised and polished version of your Week 3 Assignment, an objection to your thesis, a rebuttal, and concluding remarks. In order to benefit the most, you should start working on your Final Project from the time you receive your Week 3 Assignment back with comments from your professor.
Your assignment should include the following:
A revision of your Week 3 Case Analysis Assignment. Your revision should represent a substantial edit of your work that fully incorporates feedback from your professor and goes well beyond correcting any grammatical or APA errors.
The strongest possible objection to your thesis. After the final paragraph of your Week 3 Case Analysis Assignment, start a new paragraph that introduces the strongest possible objection to your thesis. The considerations for this are detailed in Section 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). Make sure to employ the appropriate language to introduce the objection, such as “some may object to my thesis as follows” or “according to [so and so] the thesis presented here fails to account for X” [whatever he or she finds problematic]. You can find other language to do this, of course, but the key point here is to make sure that you indicate that someone else is speaking when presenting this objection.
It is also important to remember that you do research to discover good objections and not merely objections that are weak and thus easily rebutted. Look for peer-reviewed journal articles in the University of Arizona Global Campus Library, full-text articles in Google Scholar, or articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Present the opposing position fairly and in detail. This may take more than one paragraph.
A rebuttal. This is a refutation of the objection that you have just presented. Start this in a new paragraph following the objection paragraph(s). Once again, follow the indications of Section 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). You may point out an error in the objection. Or you may show that, while it is an important objection, it
does not apply squarely to your argument, or does not account for facts that make it irrelevant. Above all, make sure to maintain philosophical decorum in your rebuttal. Toward this end, you should apply the principles of charity and accuracy, first introduced in the Week 1 course material. See “Confronting Disagreement” in Section 9.4 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015).
Closing remarks. End your argumentative essay with a paragraph of closing remarks. Provide some reflections on what you have attempted to achieve by means of your essay. You could, for example, explain how your essay sheds light on the broader controversy that it addresses. Or you could point out how your essay addresses a frequently ignored point or the unpopular side of the controversy. You could also reflect on the related matters in the broader controversy that would be useful to examine by others. Do not merely summarize what you have done in the body of your essay, and do not add new information here that would support or contradict your essay since the body of your essay should have addressed all the relevant points. See “Closing Your Essay” in Section 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo (2015).
Requirements for your Assignment:
• Your assignment should be between 1500 to 1700 words in length, excluding the cover and references pages.
• Your examination should be both thorough and succinct. This is a combination that demands time and thought, so give yourself sufficient time to draft and revise.
• Your assignment should include citations, as well as a list of references. Both must be in APA form.
• Your references should include at least four peer-reviewed articles in addition to those that you will be carrying over from our Week 3 Case Analysis Assignment. These references should be drawn from the University of Arizona Global Campus Library, Google Scholar, or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Your assignment should be submitted no later than the end of Monday (midnight, U.S. Mountain time).
Carefully review the Grading Rubric
(http://ashford.waypointoutcomes.com/assessment/13086/preview) for the criteria that will be used to
evaluate your assignment.