The Most Neglected Social Issue of Our Time
- David Kay
- Mar 31
- 5 min read
Updated: Apr 1
Future generations will look back on factory farming as a moral abomination.
Humans are notoriously bad at predicting the future of moral progress. The moral movements of yesteryear that are today viewed as table stakes in a just society — women’s suffrage, the abolition of slavery, gay marriage — were at one point seen as ludicrous. All this to say, one should have humility when considering possible new frontiers of ethical progress. No society to this point has been without ethical blindspots. Why should we assume that ours is the first?
One doesn’t need a philosophy degree to recognize that the way we think about animals is, at best, deeply inconsistent. Consider the following: many Americans love dogs and cats and shudder at the notion of any harm befalling their furry companions. We reserve furious disdain for those who abuse them, to the point where all fifty states distribute felonies for cruelty against dogs and cats. For most, the notion of torturing and killing a dog to eat him or her is beyond the pale.
And yet, humans tolerate the intolerable when it comes to farm animals merely because we have decided some species are less worthy of moral consideration than others. In a society that could send someone to jail for cutting off a dog’s testicles without painkillers, it’s not only legal, but also standard industry practice to castrate piglets without any pain relief whatsoever.
I argue that, just as humanity has expanded our circle of moral consideration over time to include more and more groups of humans — a work in progress, to be sure — we are long overdue to take the next logical leap: incorporating other species. Said differently, an immutable characteristic like species is not a sufficient criteria for determining the moral worth of an individual.
Some will counter that it’s not their species per se, but rather their lesser intellectual capacity that justifies de-valuing animals. This seems reasonable at first blush, but it collapses under scrutiny.
First, intelligence levels do not explain the previously-mentioned differential treatment provided to pets versus farm animals. Indeed, pigs are smarter than dogs, yet they are treated much worse. Second, nobody with enlightened 21st century views would argue that humans with high IQs have greater moral value than humans with low IQs — or if they do make such a claim, society rightly condemns them. Finally, consider what I call the “alien invasion” test. In most alien invasion movies, the audience reflexively roots for the humans against their more intelligent oppressors. Nobody argues that the aliens are justified in tormenting us because they are smarter. This question may soon become more than a hypothetical for monster movie nights: the development of artificial general intelligence will soon mean that humans will no longer be the most intelligent entities on Earth. Let’s hope these AI don’t view humans the way humans view chickens!
All of this begs the question: if species and intelligence are not valid reasons to discriminate, then how do we determine who counts, morally speaking? To paraphrase philosopher Jeremy Bentham, I believe that the fundamental question is whether a being can suffer and, conversely, experience joy. This means entities incapable of such feelings — plants, bacteria, rocks — are not due moral consideration. But to decide that it is morally permissible to torture and kill an individual who can suffer simply because they have a beak instead of a nose or four legs instead of two is to commit an act of “speciesism,” to use a term popularized by philosopher Peter Singer.
As alluded to above, the principal sin implicated in this argument is our callous treatment toward farm animals. The scale of this tragedy is difficult to conceive of. In just one year, more animals will be killed for food than the number of humans that have ever lived on this planet. A vast majority of these animals endure horrific abuse ranging from confining egg-laying hens in cages so small they’re unable to spread their wings, to caging mother pigs in crates too narrow for them even to turn around for years on end, to physical mutilation without painkillers, to methods of slaughter worthy of a Saw movie.
And while the rate of animal suffering today is higher than it has ever been, it is paradoxically also true that society’s views towards animals have never been more enlightened, and that we might be on the brink of a moral revolution.
Consider a poll, originally conducted by an animal protection think tank, but later replicated by an agricultural university aligned with the meat industry, that found that roughly 30% to 50% of Americans would support banning slaughterhouses in America. In an age where Americans seem hopelessly polarized, animal welfare ballot initiatives consistently pass by massive margins in states as diverse as Massachusetts, Ohio, and Florida.
At the same time, thought leaders across the ideological spectrum are increasingly acknowledging the importance of this issue. Yuval Noah Harari, best-selling author of Sapiens, has said that “the treatment of domesticated animals in industrial farms is perhaps the worst crime in history.” The New York Times columnist Ezra Klein declares that “we will look back on this age of cruelty to animals in horror.” On the right side of the aisle, conservative firebrand Vivek Ramaswamy writes that “animal cruelty will eventually become a genuine concern for conservatives. It’s already happening. Count me in.”
The good news is HBS students are uniquely positioned to make an impact on this issue. While business is arguably the largest source of animal suffering, it is also the greatest source of hope for animals. Any career trajectory — from working directly in businesses developing alternatives to animal products, to adopting more humane supply chains, to offering philanthropic support to the non-governmental organizations (NGO) leading this work, to influencing public policy — can help animals. For instance, one study found that each dollar donated to effective animal protection NGOs can spare about 250 egg-laying hens from being confined in battery cages for their entire lives. You’d be hard-pressed to find another charitable cause with that return on investment.
Humans like to assume that they would have been on the right side of history in the moments that count. Importantly, being on the right side of history has almost never entailed going along with conventional wisdom. Rather, it has required charging against conventional wisdom towards a new moral horizon. Said differently, nobody gets credit for supporting women’s suffrage in 2025, but they certainly did for supporting it in 1825.
We have an opportunity to stand boldly on the right side of history and, in doing so, prevent the suffering of millions, billions, even trillions of individuals. The question is, will we answer that call?
David Kay (MBA ‘25) was the first employee and Director of Communications at UPSIDE Foods (formerly Memphis Meats). He previously served as the Vice President of The Association for Meat, Poultry and Seafood Innovation, the first trade association for the cultivated meat industry. David has spoken at or been quoted in CNN, Reuters, USA Today, The Atlantic, The Daily Beast and SXSW and has given the keynote address at multiple industry conferences. In 2023, he was named one of The Propel 100 Most Influential Startup PR Professionals in the World. David is an advisor at From Fauna and Food Impact Partners. Previously, he served on the Board Directors at Animal Place and was appointed by the mayor of Berkeley to serve on the city’s Animal Care Commission. At HBS, David co-founded the Business of Animal Protection student club. He has a BA from Stanford University in political science.