Don’t Eat Chicken, Shop at Waitrose, Donate to Animal Charities

Eat lamb instead and don't mock vegans: How to be a conscientious carnivore

Introduction

The preceding articles have outlined why it is morally permissible to kill animals; I will now explain what I believe a conscientious carnivore should and should not eat, and, do and not do. My basic advice is threefold: Don’t eat chicken, shop at Waitrose and donate to animal charities.

• Chickens are the worst treated animals we eat today being brought up in incredibly cramp conditions, having their beaks trimmed , and, being bred to grow at such a great pace they are in constant pain. Giving up that meat alone is both easy and has the largest impact on reducing animal suffering, indeed, the average person eats 2,400 chickens in their lifetime in comparison to just 11 cows.

• Shopping at Waitrose is also an easy if expensive choice for you to make on behalf of animals as it has the best welfare standards of any supermarket; having the largest number of awards from Compassion in World Farming for them.

• Donating about £20 a month to animal charities is also a moral requirement for those of us whose eating habits impose suffering on animals which can be offset by this donation. I donate to Compassion in World Farming.

For those of you who don’t want to be the unspoken judge of everyone at the dinner table this last option is probably your best choice. The last piece of direct advice I’d make is this: Don’t mock vegans. I must confess I’ve been guilty of this in the past and I lament it now. Vegans in the majority of cases simply apply the moral standards carnivores already hold, namely, you can kill and eat animals provided they are treated well in being brought up, then, finding that to not be the case, nobly live up to those moral standards. Meat eaters, instead, either don’t know the truth about factory farming, have an inkling about it but refuse to look any further, or, know what is going on but don’t care anyway.

I know that because I went through the first two lines of thinking myself and have heard my dad say most pigs are free range; which they definitely aren’t, indeed, only 4% of pigs are free range. Applying the diet of a vegan, or, a conscientious carnivore (though to a far, far, far lesser extent) is a real test of the moral fibre of an individual because it is a clear instance where morality diverges from what is expected by social conformity and requires you to be the unspoken judge of everyone else. Many meat eaters will dispute their current habit is wrong, but even the most fervent supporters of meat eating such as Roger Scruton, Tibor Machan and Peter Zangwill condemn factory farming as deeply immoral.

Many writers such as Bentham’s Bulldog have articulated the case for the immorality of factory farming far better than I ever could and I would encourage you to read his work in particular. The basic argument against factory farming is simply put by Micheal Huemer, however, and, with a few minor tweaks of my own, I present it below. Throughout this essay I will mainly try and convince you of the second premise. In addition to the second conclusion, I also claim: The state should prohibit factory farming and use force to raise all animal farming to a humane standard.

P1: It is wrong to deliberately inflict an enormous amount of net suffering on living beings for minor benefit

P2: Factory farming causes an enormous amount of suffering for minor benefits to humans

C: Therefore, Factory farming is wrong

P4: If it’s wrong to do something, it’s wrong to pay other people to do it

P5: Buying products from factory farms is paying people for factory farming

C2: Therefore, it’s wrong to buy products from factory farms, e.g., most meat and eggs.

1. Don’t Eat Chicken

The worst treated animal on the planet is the chicken. On British farms broiler chickens are forced 19 a number into a square meter, have their beaks clipped without any anaesthetic, and, regularly get ammonia burns as a result of living in their own faeces which is sterilised with the substance. ‘The litter in a chicken shed is usually not cleaned out during the broiler’s lifetime’. Birds which have grown too quickly are caught in the thinning process; this often causes injuries ‘such as broken legs and wings’. Due to the great demand for chicken, 90% of them have been bred to grow so quickly and to such a large size that they are in constant pain: Their legs cannot support them and their organs often fail in the 42 days it takes before they are of market weight. This latter figure is down from 111 days in 1922, meaning, broilers are growing at twice the speed they once did.

In sheds of 25,000 birds, 94% of UK broiler chickens are ‘intensively reared’ in unnatural conditions where they almost never see the natural light of day. Due to high stocking densities lots of them are pecked to death. Many broilers face fractures to their bones which never recover putting them into severe agony for weeks upon weeks before they are slaughtered. Starvation and lameness too also plague flocks. When it comes to their slaughter 30% are still hung upside down before being electrically stunned, and, 10% of them face no stunning at all. A few chickens are unfortunate enough to not be stunned after being dragged along the electrical water bath and those unlucky enough to not have their heads then sliced off are scalded to death with steam for an estimated 70 seconds. This is truly torture.

One philosopher has described these living conditions as ‘a living death’. Not a vegan philosopher such as Peter Singer or Tom Regan, rather, those are the words of Roger Scruton. When even the firmest proponents of meat eating condemn factory farming of chickens it should make you think twice about buying cheap chicken. Hardly anyone defends the factory farming of chickens which are widely regarded to have lives of such excruciating pain they are of negative utility overall. One of the few philosophers to do so is Tim Hsiao who argues the mentioned practises are not actually cruel; this is blatantly false. The moral consensus on eating chicken that most people buy is very clearly against it. You should not eat chicken because doing so inflicts severe suffering on them which is wrong in the highest degree.

What about free range chickens, or, RSPCA approved chickens, I hear you ask? Would it not be morally permissible to eat them given they are not allegedly subject to any of the severe suffering I have mentioned. Many people have asked me this question when I have said I do not eat chicken any more. I do not have any moral objection to eating a well treated free range chicken per se. I’d note though the RSPCA standards are hardly better than legal requirements with stocking density rules allowing 15 birds per square metre. Nevertheless, I think not eating any chicken at all is a good rule for conscientious carnivores to adopt for two reasons.

First: It is a very clear moral rule and it has the largest impact on animal welfare of any choice to give up a particular meat. Over a lifetime the average person will consume about 11 cows, 27 pigs, 30 sheep and 2,400 chickens, meaning, the vast majority of the suffering you inflict via your diet can be avoided by not eating chicken. The problem with eating free range chicken is it’s very easy for this to break resolve; it is a slippery slope which can lead you to returning to eating factory farm chicken. Sure, strong-willed people need not be worried, but because the immorality of eating chicken is so very great it is best to just avoid the risk altogether. If you want something which tastes like chicken eat a free range turkey instead.

Second, chicken is very easy to give up. I’ve not eaten chicken since November 2023 and bar a few instances when I’ve gone out together with people, I’ve found it to cause none of the awkwardness which many carnivores fear from coming across as vegan like. Plus, chicken is the worst of the four meats. Think of those chicken meals which you really enjoy, e.g., Kentucky Fried Chicken, very often it is the batter or sauce which is actually being enjoyed. To me, chicken is a dry meat with little taste. Chicken is the least manly of meats as well, containing the most estrogen of any animal flesh. Many will dismiss this point, but being manly is very much associated with meat eating, hence, even a trivial reason for men to give up chicken and maintain their manliness is useful in helping animals.

A Note on Pigs

After chickens the next worst treated farm animals are pigs. The vast majority of pigs are raised in indoor systems where they have little space: The legal space requirement for pigs is 1m by 0.65ms which is smaller than the space of about 1m squared of a pig lying down. Many sows are also subject to being put in farrowing crates for up to five weeks on fully slated floors. Unfortunately, pigs are subject to a range of mutilations too such as tail docking and teeth trimming without pain killers. This is done in many cases because their enclosures are too small and they simply get bored very quickly in pretty sterile conditions so they end up biting each others’ tails, which the docking prevents. I only eat free range pork to avoid inflicting this pain on pigs.

2. Shop at Waitrose

A Waitrose pig farm - Photo credit to Waitrose

My second recommendation to ensure morally permissible meat eating is to shop at Waitrose. I recommend this because Waitrose has the highest welfare standards of any supermarket chain. In order to show this, I will now go through Peter Singer’s 1995 edition of Animal Liberation and specifically deal with his objections to humane farming. My hope is at the end of reading this you will shop for meat at Waitrose, and, explain to vegans why this is fine. I will only focus on their free range products.

Pigs

About 4% of UK pigs are kept in free range systems and Waitrose stocks meat from such pigs in its stores (but only if labelled free range; otherwise they are kept in mostly indoor systems). Castration is common place for most pigs and ‘the operation causes shock and pain to the animal’. This typically requires a ‘slit to the scrotum’ and then for the farmer to ‘grab each testicle in turn and pull it out.’ At Waitrose their UK pigs are ‘100% free from castration’. Another issue Singer cites is ‘pigs having their tails cut off …[without] painkillers or anaesthetics’. Waitrose’s free range pork is ‘100% free from tail docking’, yet, unfortunately, only 26% of their regular range is free of such an imposition. Additionally, their UK pigs are ‘100% free from teeth clipping’ too. When animal cruelty is talked about close confinement is almost always top of the list. In contrast: ‘The stocking density for our free range pigs is 36m2/pig’. When it comes to the birthing mothers, ‘sow stalls and farrowing crates are also prohibited.’ Singer also raises concerns about the transport and slaughter process. Waitrose pigs spend an average of three hours going to the abattoir. Waitrose’s slaughterhouse, Pilgrims, gasses all of its pigs with carbon dioxide to ensure their quick death. This gassing is a very unpleasant process which lasts about 45 seconds while the pigs are conscious, and, 0.5% of these gassings are ineffective. I will address it and other instances of cruelty in the second part of this section.

Cows

According to Singer ‘beef producers dehorn, brand and castrate their animals…[and] all of these processes can cause severe physical pain’. Now 98% of Waitrose’s cattle is free from dehorning and of the remaining 2%, 65% are polled, i.e., naturally without horns, and, 23% don’t face disbudding either. No tail docking of their UK cows takes place too. However, only 20% of males are free from castration. The cows remain totally free from branding and instead just face a plastic tag on their ear which I imagine is very similar to getting a piecing. Crucially, during ‘the spring and summer…[the] cattle are reared on open pasture in social groups and during winter shelter is made available in bedded barns’. When being transported to the abattoir the average cow has to undergo a 3.21 hour journey. And when the animals get to the abattoir, they are killed under Temple Grandin’s method of slaughter using either electrical stunning or the captive bolt gun (a very hard knock to the brain causing unconsciousness then throat slitting). Singer points to the ineffective nature of stunning, but at Waitrose fewer than 0.25% of stuns are ineffective.

Lambs

The farming of lambs has always struck me as being a decisive case against the farming of animals today being all bad. Singer must have similar thoughts because after listing the animals we must not eat he notes in the next sentence that ‘relatively little lamb is intensively produced’. At Waitrose all of the lambs are raised in fields with ‘their mothers from birth until weaning and during this time, they suckle naturally and live in family groups’, meaning, a central objection Singer has to dairy farming does not apply here. I’ve grown up with lambs around me and I can confirm by the time they are ready for slaughter that maternal bond appears to be very weak indeed. Nevertheless, not everything is rosy with lambing. At Waitrose 92% of lambs face tail docking which is typically achieved with a very tight rubber band and 55% are subject to a similar process for their castration; both processes are painful. However, unlike the pigs of around the same size, lambs are subject to electrical stunning before throat slitting after a 2.14hr drive to the abattoir, and, this is only ineffective in 0.05% of cases. Additionally, all abattoirs are monitored by CCTV.

Deer

Of all of the meats available at Waitrose I am confident in saying venison is the most humanely raised. Singer’s concerns about castration, branding and tail docking are entirely absent as the deer are ‘100% free from mutilation’ (though they are de-antlered). All are raised outdoors except in harsh winters when they are brought into ‘straw bedded barns’. Those which are brought up in parks are ‘shot using non-lead rifle ammunition’ which is the way I would want to go if I were an animal, and, the rest face stunning via the captive bolt gun.

Eggs

Funnily enough for an individual widely considered to be a vegan, Singer is happy to eat free range eggs. Nevertheless, vegans are still rightly sceptical of this label, so, I’m going to outline Waitrose’s standard here which only includes all their shelled eggs, i.e., eggs in cartons. None of their beaks are treated or trimmed and they all have access to paddocks which have tree coverage of at least 5% with each bird having at least 1m2 to itself of outdoor space. Indoors ‘they also benefit from bedding, toys, perches, and provision of grit in the house’. When it comes to slaughter it takes about 4.83 hours to get them to the abattoir after which they are stunned using CO2 gassing which avoids the problem of electrocutions being ineffective leading to a few chickens being scolded alive. Only 0.22% of spent hens die in the process of transportation. Unfortunately, eggs inside products from Waitrose, although free range, do not meet the same standards as for their hens producing shelled eggs.

Milk

All bottled milk and cream at Waitrose comes from cows which spend at least 183 days out grazing in fields. The rest of the time the cows are ‘sheltered in clean, dry and airy barns with readily available food and water’ with ‘fresh bedding’, ‘fibre-rich grass and silage’ and ‘brushes’. and they are not subject to ‘tethering or tail docking’ either. However, the milk which goes into their various products; as with their eggs, does not meet such rigorous standards.

Farming as Natural Offsetting

The preceding look at the welfare policies of Waitrose has revealed there remains a number of unpleasant practises even in the most humane supermarket. Only venison comes out totally unscathed from the investigation. Cows are still subject to castration, lambs face castration and tail docking and free range pigs are painfully gassed to death. Must the conscientious carnivore then give up shopping at Waitrose for their beef, pork and lamb? Maybe. However, I want to make the case that:

1. Inflicting pain on animals is morally permissible provided it leads to a net reduction of such pain relative to the baseline of their natural condition.

2. The animal must prefer they exist to not existing in being brought into the world by mankind.

It is implausible to really believe an animal has a right against ever having pain inflicted on itself. Only consider taking a dog to the vet; we inflict minor pain on the dog via the operation to fix its broken leg which reduces down the overall amount of pain it experiences. The real concern then is whether we are inflicting a net amount of pain on the animal. Considering a net amount of pain though immediately raises the question of net according to what baseline. In his discussion of keeping pets in Animal Rights: A Very Short Introduction, David DeGrazia contends one of the two conditions of doing so is ‘the animal must be provided with a life that is at least as good as she would likely have in the wild’. I am on board with this for farm animals. I think they should have a decent life too, though, this need only be ensured by not imposing things upon them; not by requiring positive interventions from man. If it required positive action then we’d be implausibly committed to policing nature itself and stopping predation and disease.

What this all means is animal agriculture can permissibly inflict pain on animals provided it reduces down the overall amount of pain they would otherwise experience in the wild and they live a decent life too. I take the view Waitrose’s practices towards free range pigs and lamb ensure there is no net infliction of suffering, hence, eating these animals remains fine. To be clear, the below methods are really analogous to fixing a dog’s broken leg.

Lambs

Lambs undergo castration and tail docking which are both painful processes. Castration in the UK typically involves the rubber ring method, i.e., putting a rubber ring over the testicles until the blood supply to the testicles is cut off to such an extent that they drop off. The same process occurs with tail docking without painkillers. An interesting report from the Farm Animal Welfare Council on the whole process can be found here. As the report notes ‘the justification for tail docking is to help minimise the risk of flystrike, a most debilitating condition that can be fatal.’ Flystrike is a painful instance of flies laying eggs under the moist areas of skin at the rear end of the sheep, eggs which then hatch into maggots and burrow under the skin and potentially cause death. Approximately 1.28% of sheep are currently affected by this condition. Importantly for carnivores though, a detailed study of flystrike in England found the prevalence of flystrike to be 1.4% on docked lambs and 6.9% in undocked lambs. Although a summary of it notes the independent risk of faecal soiling, the original study concludes ‘tail docking protected against blowfly strike’. The researchers acknowledge though that flys may simply go to the most vulnerable sheep, meaning, tail docking wouldn’t make much difference. About 5% of sheep which get flystrike go onto die; meaning, 0.064% of sheep will probably die from it. I doubt that many die from castration or tail docking. All in all the British Veterinary Association concludes: ‘For many flocks, we recognise that tail-docking is currently the only practical means of managing the serious negative health and welfare outcomes of fly-strike.’

Another problem sheep suffer from is foot rot, i.e., a painful infection in between the digits of sheep which causes lameness and can lead to hyperalgesia (an extreme sensitivity to pain). In Great Britain about 90% of flocks carry this disease. Without the intervention of farmers through foot bathing and the administering of vaccines and antibiotics the prevalence would be much higher. One study finds the rate of footrot with bathing (in chemicals such as Zinc sulphate) to be 33% compared to 41% without it. Since 2000, the rate of lameness in sheep has decreased from 10.6% in 2004 to 3% as of 2022. Although a few practices such as foot trimming appear to be detrimental, yet, still commonly used, I reckon we can have confidence that farmers put lambs and sheep under them to a net advantage. Sure, the net advantage is not as great as possible, however, it is implausible to think morality would require this. This is because it would rule out all of those instances of help which are net beneficial but still not the best; a prospect animals would universally reject if they could choose. When it comes to lambing, we can concur with Roger Scruton when he writes:

‘Sheep…are, in the conditions which prevail in English pastures, well-fed, comfortable and protected, cared for when disease afflicts them and, after a quiet life among their natural companions, dispatched in ways which human beings, if they are rational, must surely envy’

Pigs

For free range pigs at Waitrose the only big worry from an animal welfare perspective is the way in which they are slaughtered. Waitrose’s pigs, along with 88% of UK pigs, are gassed in high concentrations of carbon dioxide. According to the European Food Safety Agency: ‘[A]t concentrations above 30 per cent CO₂, the gas is known to be aversive and cause hyperventilation and irritation of the mucous membranes that can be painful and elicits hyperventilation and gasping before loss of consciousness.’ In practice this causes ‘screaming and thrashing around violently trying to escape – for up to one minute’. Against this the Humane Slaughter Association notes that cardon dioxide does act as a painkiller after a while, but even they admit it’s not a humane procedure. You can watch the video here to make up your own mind. I must confess I stopped eating pork for a while after coming across this information. Nevertheless, I contend inflicting this suffering on pigs is permissible because in the round the humane farming of pigs is to their own advantage relative to the natural condition of them. Some will say this is simply a rationalisation of wanting to eat bacon; maybe, however, I think the power of my reasoning could even convince Regan into gassing pigs.

As with our discussion of sheep and lambs, we need information on the natural condition of pigs and piglets to get the baseline of welfare which cannot be set back by their farming. Being domesticated animals, this is hard to get for obvious reasons. This Spanish study suggests 17% of wild boar die due to predation (with the majority falling prey to harvesting by humans). These pigs were no doubt ripped to death, the fortunate ones having their neck immediately broken. I wouldn’t be surprised if these maulings took about if not more than 45 seconds a time (here are three videos of animal maulings). And even though the death may be quick for some there will be many which are injured and then die a drawn out and painful death (see here).Should we assume about 45 seconds of severe pain for 17% of the pigs in their natural condition we get about 8 seconds of severe pain for the expected pig in their natural condition.

What of all the other pigs in nature; how would they naturally die? I’ve enjoyed reading the whole of this 1977 study into the mortality rate of wild boar piglets, which turns out to be 69% in the first two years, 48% in the first year alone. According to the researchers the piglets probably died because ‘the young animals may not be adapted to withstand April ground frosts’, and, due to cold weather in the autumn when they are developing their winter coats in addition to the ‘development of parasites of the lungs and alimentary tract’ and starvation too. The already mentioned Spanish study finds 30% of wild boar die due to the disease of tuberculosis. This is a painful disease which makes the animal struggle to breathe and have a fever too. Starvation is also painful.

It is very difficult to quantify pain to make comparisons between different scenarios to then opt for which is better for the animal on a net basis. An excellent study by the Welfare Footprint Project looks into the very painful processes which battery hens and broiler chickens have to undergo. Fortunately, for us they put numbers on these processes which we can use as a very rough proxy for the pain which pigs would likely undergo in the wild from starvation. Let us take five days worth of starvation for pigs as standard before their natural death and apply the ratios of the four types of pain starving chickens undergo. Chickens undergoing hunger experience annoying, hurtful and disabling pain in a ratio 3.67: 29.19: 13.72 respectively. So, a pig undergoing five days of starvation until death will experience about 62% of pain as hurtful, 29% of pain as annoying and 8% of pain as disabling. In hours this means the average pig would undergo 74hrs of hurtful pain, 35hrs of annoying pain and 10hrs of disabling pain. We can half these figures to get to the conscious time given pigs will be asleep for the other half: 35hrs of hurtful pain, 17.5hrs of annoying pain and 5hrs of disabling pain.

Now chickens undergo carbon dioxide gassing, as pigs do, spending about two and a half minutes in the system until their death. This ensures 9 seconds of disabling pain, 42 seconds of hurtful pain and 23 seconds of annoying pain (according to the Welfare Footprint Project). Now pigs being gassed by carbon dioxide spend about 45 seconds being gassed, meaning, should the proportion of pain be that as for chickens, 26 seconds is spent in hurtful pain, 14 seconds is spent in annoying pain and 5 seconds in disabling pain. We can now get to a rough ratio for each type of pain for the pigs in the wild versus pigs in agricultural conditions for their death implausibly using starvation as the sole natural way of death.

Annoying pain: 4500 : 1

Hurtful pain: 63,000 : 13

Disabling Pain: 3600 : 1

It should be evident that even if pigs experience much more pain than chickens in the gassing it would have to be much worse than death by starvation in order to get these ratios going the other way. Indeed, Temple Grandin, an advocate of humane slaughter, says gassing ‘is irritating to the respiratory tract’ but lasts just ‘20 or more seconds’ not 45 seconds. Contrary to the Viva: The Vegan Charity, Grandin also cites a study which finds between only 0.6% and 46% of pigs try to violently escape gassing with most abattoirs having 20% of their pigs trying it. This reaffirms the plausibility of the ratio. It should also be noted that no excruciating pain is undergone in the gassing process (should pigs feel the same type of pain as chickens) while about 17% of piglets in the wild would experience this in being eaten alive. Certainly, a higher proportion of pigs would be eaten alive in the wild compared to under agricultural conditions as farmers have an incentive to stop predation on their droves of pigs. We can conclude with Scruton that: ‘From all these calamities animals gain relief and protection when we decide to offer it’

3. Donate to Animal Charities

We have now established that lamb and free range pork from Waitrose can be eaten within the bounds of morality, however, beef and dairy cattle are perhaps a different matter. Indeed: I’ve spent hours looking into lameness in cattle and come to no concrete conclusions as to whether human interventions advantage them or not compared to their natural condition. The same can be said for their housing and feeding and slaughter etc. I now want to suggest that by donating to animal charities you can offset any harm you do to certain animals ensuring no net suffering is inflicted upon them meaning it remains morally permissible to eat them having made a sufficient donation of at least £22 a month following my diet.

Again, it is morally permissible to inflict pain on animals provided two conditions are met. First, the infliction of the pain is offset by a reduction in pain of an equal or greater amount elsewhere relative to the natural condition of the animal. Two, the whole life of the animal is still worth living. This second condition stops the implausible conclusion of it being acceptable to bring a being into existence who would suffer immensely in a natural condition. If you donate to an animal charity and this reduces the net suffering the average animal will experience to a greater extent than your demand for that animal increases its suffering then it is morally acceptable to eat its meat or drink its milk. A crucial point to make is you must donate before your meat consumption not at the same time, because, you will have only not violated the animal’s rights where it has already received the expected benefit, obviously, giving money just before you eat a hamburger is benefiting future animals not the animal you are actually eating which should be your real concern.

I’m confident in saying beef cattle and most dairy cattle in the UK meet the second condition, i.e., their lives are worth living, certainly I think Waitrose’s cattle does. In the UK 87% of cattle are raised outdoors at least part of the year and the list of animal welfare concerns the RSPCA makes is not massive. Nonetheless, I reckon, from a limited overview, a net amount of suffering may still be inflicted upon them relative to the natural condition, e.g., castration and dehorning (however, I still think this is open to debate because cattle are saved a painful death via the captive bolt gun method of slaughter and treated for various diseases such as bovine tuberculosis). Thus, it is incumbent upon beef eaters and dairy consumers to donate money to animal charities to offset this harm. How much should you donate and to which organisations?

After extensive searching, I have not been able to find a British charity which states how much money needs to be given to it to offset for any pain inflicted by typical meat eaters on cows, pigs and lambs. As a result, I’m going to use some back of an envelope calculations with reasonable estimates to come to how much I should donate. Farm Kind, a US animal charity, estimates how much the average person needs to give to offset the animal suffering they cause as £18.36 a month, or, £220.32 a year. Should your concern simply be with offsetting suffering you cause to animals donate this amount. My concern though is donating to animals that I potentially effect in Britain to offset the harm I impose on then.

I’ve been asked in the past why I don’t just give more money to these animal charities and carry on eating chickens and eggs which are not free range along with normally raised pigs. I’ve not really had a good answer to this question besides its not at all inconsistent to do as I currently do. However, I think there is actually a coherent reason to refrain from eating these products while still offsetting for cows, namely, the demand you create via eating chicken brings into existence a chicken whose life is not worth living, indeed, their lives remain full of intense suffering, and, although it could lead a worthwhile life due to your donations, the risk of it not leading a worthwhile life is too great to warrant bringing it into existence. The same applies for much pork and non-free range hens.

I reckon I consume about the below given I eat meat at around the 75^th percentile: Farm Kind recommends I donate a figure of £10.37 a month, or, £124.44 a year. Now let us assume that Compassion in World Farming UK is half as effective as the charities I would donate to via Farm Kind, meaning, the total donation I should make is £248.88 a year. I don’t think this latter assumption is at all unreasonable. Animal Charity Evaluators have said of the US Arm of Compassion in World Farming: ‘We believe that Compassion USA’s corporate outreach work is particularly effective because of the high number of animals it affects and the breadth of its reach.’ The Effective Altruists have given a thumbs up to both the US and UK branches of this organisation which, to my mind, shows my assumptions are justifiable.

I suppose a donation of that amount should be enough, however, I’m fond of the idea of a very direct approach to helping animals too. Donating to an animal sanctuary which saves cows from abuse ensures the expected value of harm you inflict is definitely negative. The average person eats about 0.14 cows a year. I suspect most of my right wing readers eat more than that and I certainly do. So, another set of back of an envelope calculations can give us how much I need to give to offset my beef consumption via this method. It costs about £1.50 a day to house a cow in the winter and £304 to feed it over that period; together these costs are £577. 75 (assuming the cows are in for half the time). Now multiplied by 0.28 which is my beef consumption gives £161.77. I’m not giving that much. But I’ll chip in £50 or there abouts to one or a few of these animal sanctuaries taking my total donations to £300 from 2025. I think this is a justifiable amount, especially given I shop at Waitrose which already has the best treatment of animals of all the major supermarkets. [So, I’ve given £200 to Compassion in World Farming UK and a £5 monthly donation thus far, and, will look into the above sanctuaries soon - my money is where my mouth is].

Reflections

Much of this essay has been written not so much for the reader as for me to sort out my own moral views and to justify my eating habits. At times I have felt very uncomfortable in eating meat because of the morality of killing animals even besides their poor treatment on typical farms. Reading back Part 2 of this series has renewed my confidence in the morality of conscientious carnivory as has two vegans I know not objecting to humane farming per se. The vegan doubts still plague me from time to time though and I know it is mostly my stomach which is pulling in the other direction. I’ve not raised my thoughts on animals with friends and family that much, because, quite frankly, it’s awkward.

Yet two instances stick in my mind. The first was with a friend of mine at The Ivy in Victoria, London. I don’t know how we got onto it in 2022, but he said, after giving a good argument for veganism, he could never give up meat because ‘I just don’t care enough’ tucking into his beef tartar. I was having fish and chips and I remember seriously objecting to that. A couple of months ago I explained to my Dad that I’ve given up eating chicken because I think its wrong to treat them inhumanely, and, for the same reason, I think everyone else should give up chicken and are acting wrongly when they continue to eat it. After making clear this was because of the cruelty, my Dad said: ‘[I’ll carry on eating chicken] Because I don’t give a fuck [about the chicken].’ In reality I don’t believe either of them are really sincere in a certain sense.

Most of us like to think of ourselves as good people, and, at the very least, this requires doing what morality commands. And, quite obviously, this requires giving up eating poorly treated animals, so, we should do that. At times I think I should go full vegan and I question whether my current position is simply that because of its culinary convenience. Maybe. But on reflection my position isn’t simply ad hoc as I have adjusted my diet by excluding chicken, duck and non-free range pork and eggs from my it while discovering my coherent thoughts on animal ethics at the same time. I’m open to being swayed further to the vegan side of things, however.

Conclusion

In sum, I would urge you to not eat chicken, shop at Waitrose and donate to animal charities. Animals do not have the rational nature which grants them a right to life, we can rightfully eat them, but they do have a life of sentience which enables them to feel pleasure and pain giving them an interest against having suffering inflicted upon them which should be respected by all. None of us would tolerate seeing a man repeatedly hurting his dog, so, analogously, neither should we tolerate or engage in the repeated hurting of farm animals either. They may be out of our sight, but they should never be out of our mind, especially when it comes to dinner time.