Factory Farming is Morally Wrong

Source

Twitter Post

---

Original Reconstruction

1. Many nonhuman animals are ends-in-themselves and thus merit respect.

2. Factory farm animals are such nonhuman animals.

3. Factory farming is contrary to the respect merited by ends-in-themselves.

So,

4. Factory farming is morally wrong.

   ---

Commentary

First, note that premise 1 includes a conclusion; it contains the word “thus.” This means that premise 1 can be expanded into an argument. Let us do that.

---

1. Anything that is an end-in-itself merits respect.

2. Many nonhuman animals are ends-in-themselves.

So,

3. Many nonhuman animals merit respect. (This follows 1 and 2.)

4. Factory farm animals are such nonhuman animals.

5. Factory farming is contrary to the respect merited by ends-in-themselves.

So,

6. Factory farming is morally wrong.

---

Before moving on, notice the structure of the overall reconstruction. It is

1. premise

2. premise

3. conclusion

4. premise

5. premise

6. conclusion

There are two premises after the first conclusion, which is a sign that not every conclusion is directly preceded by the minimum number of necessary premises that belong to the argument (rule P1). If you take a closer look at premise 4, you should realize that there is an implicit conclusion that follows. Let us write it out.

---

1. Anything that is an end-in-itself merits respect.

2. Many nonhuman animals are ends-in-themselves.

So,

3. Many nonhuman animals merit respect. (This follows 1 and 2.)

4. Factory farm animals are such nonhuman animals.

So,

5. Factory farm animals merit respect. (This follows 1 and 4.)

6. Factory farming is contrary to the respect merited by ends-in-themselves.

So,

7. Factory farming is morally wrong.

---

To be clear, I understand 4 to be saying “Factory farm animals are such nonhuman animals that are ends-in-themselves.” Understood this way, note that 5 follows 1 and 4—not 3 and 4. This suggests that 3 is redundant. So what I will do is remove 3, per rule P1.

We now have this.

---

1. Anything that is an end-in-itself merits respect.

2. Many nonhuman animals are ends-in-themselves.

3. Factory farm animals are such nonhuman animals.

So,

4. Factory farm animals merit respect. (This follows 1-3.)

5. Factory farming is contrary to the respect merited by ends-in-themselves.

So,

6. Factory farming is morally wrong.

---

But notice we now have 3 premises before the first conclusion, which is not as concise. So to make the argument even more concise and in accordance with P1, we can replace premises 2 and 3 with a proposition that combines the spirit of 2 and 3.

Let us do that and combine it with the rest of the argument.

---

1. Anything that is an end-in-itself merits respect.

2. Factory farm animals are ends-in-themselves.

So,

3. Factory farm animals merit respect. (This follows 1 and 2.)

4. Factory farming is contrary to the respect merited by ends-in-themselves.

So,

5. Factory farming is morally wrong.

---

Next, there is an implicit premise around 4, and it has to do with something being contrary to respect. Since the premise will be broader than 4, I will place it before 4, per rule L1. It will now be the new premise 4.

---

1. Anything that is an end-in-itself merits respect.

2. Factory farm animals are ends-in-themselves.

So,

3. Factory farm animals merit respect. (This follows 1 and 2.)

4. Anything that is contrary to the respect merited by ends-in-themselves is morally wrong.

5. Factory farming is contrary to the respect merited by ends-in-themselves.

So,

6. Factory farming is morally wrong. (This follows 4 and 5.)

---

When structured like this, the last argument is actually independent, meaning that it does not rely on the earlier propositions. To see this, follow the trail of logic backward, per rule P2.

• 6 follows 4 and 5

• 4 and 5 do not follow any earlier propositions

• 3 follows 1 and 2

This analysis makes it clear that there are two separate arguments. For me, I like to present separate arguments separately.

The last change I will make is to include the conclusion indicator word in the conclusion. This is not important enough to be one of my rules; it is just a preference.

We now have this.

---

Final Version

First Argument

1. Anything that is an end-in-itself merits respect.

2. Factory farm animals are ends-in-themselves.

3. So, factory farm animals merit respect. (This follows 1 and 2.)

---

Second Argument

1. Anything that is contrary to the respect merited by ends-in-themselves is morally wrong.

2. Factory farming is contrary to the respect merited by ends-in-themselves.

3. So, factory farming is morally wrong. (This follows 1 and 2.)

---