People have to eat, and some of what they eat is meat. As with everything, there’s a tradeoff, in this case between animal welfare and meat prices. Liv Boeree in Palladium magazine makes a convincing case that current law prioritizes low meat prices too much and animal welfare too little. Hence, inhumane factory farms.
Boeree also argues that factory farms produce unhealthy meat due to excessive hormone and antibiotic use. The evidence isn’t all that clear, and I find this part of her argument less convincing. Avoiding cruelty to animals in itself is a worthy goal, whether it affects meat quality or not.
More generally, I’m not sure that the generally held assumption that listing multiple arguments for a favored cause is more convincing than a single argument is warranted. This is especially true if the secondary arguments are less strong or rely on weaker evidence. Instead, the opposite may be the case: The weaker arguments may provide ammunition to those opposed to the cause.
As a geneticist, I often listen to arguments for or against something that are dependent on heredity. For example, I’ve heard that society should be tolerant towards homosexuality since it has a genetic component and is therefore not a choice. To me, this line of reasoning doesn’t make sense. I feel society should let people live their sexuality whichever way they want. Whether that sexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant.
There is a related reason why enlisting secondary arguments may undermine your cause. By definition, you care less about them than about your primary argument. As a result, it’s more important to you if they support your cause than if they are true. Astute listeners may pick up on this, undermining your credibility. It may actually bolster your credibility, and therefore your cause, if you point out the arguments against it. An added benefit of being your own critic is it makes you less likely to support the wrong causes. I try to frankly, but not naively, volunteer arguments against what I’m proposing whenever I’m in “selling mode” and it has served me well.
I’d like to propose a test for deciding whether to make your cause dependent on a secondary argument for which the data isn’t fully settled: if new data showed that the secondary argument is actually incorrect, would you be willing to abandon the primary argument? If not, consider not using the secondary argument when you state your case.
Nehaveigur 