Final Philosophy Paper: Feeding Profit, Starving Justice, An Ethical Critique of American Agriculture
Shane Flaherty
Economics Student, The University of Southern Maine
SBS 370: Toward A Global Ethics // Analytic Methods & Practical Skills III
April 13th, 2026
Introduction
America’s modern agricultural system, which is dominated by enormous corporate conglomerates, presents indisputable ethical tensions between efficiency and exploitation, profit and sustainability, and individual benefit versus collective responsibility. By analyzing the systems that govern our agricultural practices with a mix of ethical frameworks, this paper will argue that while agribusiness may maximize productivity and economic output, it often does so at profound moral cost to ecosystems, vulnerable populations, and long-term societal wellbeing.
Environmental ethics macro
Nature is often regarded as containing harsh and unequal relationships, such as those between predator and prey, where survival frequently depends on domination and loss. However, unlike other species, humans possess the unique ability to consciously shape and restructure their environments on a massive scale. Nowhere is this more evident than in the American agriculture system. This ability, which has primarily been an anthropocentric approach, meaning nature is primarily valued for its utility to humans, has correlated to the increasing needs of our metabolic appetite as population increases. Agribusiness operations globally have enabled the development of advanced agriculture systems but have also curated unprecedented levels of ecological disruption. Modern agribusiness approaches strive to maximize efficiency and profits. Unfortunately, these pursuits extend beyond natural limits and wreak environmental havoc via soil erosion, biodiversity loss, and long-term environmental instability and have adverse impacts on human communities and ecological systems. Free market principles hail the significant economic benefits generated by these practices but fail to account for the reality of these advantages being largely concentrated among a small segment of society, leaving the broader ecological and social consequences to be experienced by present and future generations. We must challenge the ethical legitimacy of a system that prioritizes short term gains over ecological sustainability and moral responsibility. Thinkers such as Bill McKibben have warned humanity that industrial systems are destabilizing natural processes, particularly through climate change. The agricultural system in the U.S. accounts for roughly 10% of national greenhouse emissions (EPA 2026). Environmental ethics and economics must align in policy with an ecocentric approach which recognizes the intrinsic value of ecosystems independent of their economic function (Congreves 2025). While environmental ethics focuses on the moral value of nature itself, utilitarianism shifts the discussion toward weighing overall benefits and harms.
Environmental ethics micro
Regionally, New England sheds light on how these tensions persist outside of traditional large industrial farming zones. Pesticide runoff and other agricultural runoff contribute to ecological stresses in critical waterways such as the Gulf of Maine and the Long Island Sound, and climate change is already affecting growing seasons and fisheries. Great white shark sightings have increased drastically over the years as the oceans continue to heat and rise. Although farms in our region are smaller in comparison, they still often rely on practices that cause strain on ecosystems (Beal 2023). This highlights that the ethical issue isn’t simply scale, but the broad agriculture operation system. The foundation of said agriculture system is erroneous, as it goes against Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic claim that humans are members of a biological community, not masters of it. In the current context, industrial agriculture uses land as a capital asset designed to be exploited for the extraction of economic value, in contrast to Leopold’s more ecologically sound model that emphasizes community-based cultivation. Arne Næss, on the other hand, argues that biodiversity is a value, and that all living things deserve to thrive in their natural habitats without extensive human intervention. To build upon Næss, if we consider all living beings to have intrinsic value and the fundamental right to flourish, then monoculture farming and biodiversity collapse are not only inefficient, but they are also morally impermissible reductions of life’s richness. When taken together, Leopold and Næss expose that industrial agriculture is not only environmentally harmful, but it is also philosophically incoherent within any framework that grants the necessary and sensible intrinsic value to ecosystems on the only planet we have to call home.
Utilitarianism macro
Utilitarianism analyzes actions based on their consequences, with the objective of maximizing overall well-being and minimizing overall pain. On the surface, agribusiness appears to prosper in this regard. The U.S. produces enough food to feed millions globally in addition to its population, and food expenditures account for less than 10% of average household income, one of the lowest rates on Earth (Zeballos 2025). Despite this boon, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill put emphasis on maximizing happiness, but also stressed the importance of considering all affected parties. Closer examination reveals that agribusiness introduces profound harms, with diet related diseases affecting over 40% of American adults (Matthews 2024), moreover, agricultural runoff contributes to environmental damage such as e. coli ridden algae blooms, and farmworkers often face poor work conditions. Such detrimental costs complicate the claim that the system truly maximizes overall well-being. Mill takes it a step further by distinguishing between higher and lower pleasures, in which he promotes the idea that higher pleasures are intellectually stimulating and lower pleasures are purely physical sensations. This is a critical distinction when analyzing the agribusiness model because even if our current model increases caloric availability (a lower pleasure in Mill’s view), it simultaneously degrades higher pleasures such as long-term health, environmental stability, and human dignity. Essentially, the system we have maximizes short-term consumption while undermining long-term flourishing, this overwhelming fails even on its own utilitarian terms. Although utilitarianism weighs collective outcomes, ethical egoism instead centers on individual self-interest.
Utilitarianism micro
In New England, local and industrial food systems reflect the contrast of this tension. With locally produced food supporting communities and reducing environmental impact, but at a premium cost which not all can afford (Dereniowska 2019). As a result, many households rely on cheaper, mass-produced food as essential costs of living continue to rise and wages remain stagnant. This reality exposes holes in the system and creates a utilitarian dilemma, should the system prioritize affordability for the many, or sustainability and quality for the few? Additionally, food sources can easily be put into higher and lower pleasure baskets, as Mill asserted. Food sources that clearly and accurately articulate the short chain of destinations to land them on the shelf in front of you are a much higher pleasure for the individual to purchase and consume, as they have the mental peace of mind knowing the source of the nutrients in which they are relying on for survival and bodily sustenance.
Ethical egoism macro
Ethical egoism argues that individuals and organizations should act according to their own self-interest. When analyzed through this lens, agribusiness appears to be behaving rationally by maximizing profits and efficiency. The consolidation of the agriculture industry, wherein the top 4 meat packing companies dominate over 80% of the market (MacDonald 1999), demonstrates how key players strategically exert control over the industry. These practices align with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, which states rational self-interest is morally justified. However, these pursuits often lead to externalities such as environmental damage and labor exploitation, in which the major contributors of such problems never have to provide the solutions to these problems. To this end, Rand’s defense of rational self-interest is incorrect in its assumption that the system exists where actors bear the consequences of their own actions. Agribusiness takes advantage of this assumption by externalizing costs such as pollution, health impacts, and labor exploitation. Therefore, modern agriculture is not truly egoistic in Rand’s sense, but a distorted form of self-interest that depends on avoiding responsibility and accountability. In contrast to ethical egoism’s self-interested framework, divine command theory offers moral obligations that transcend profit.
Ethical egoism micro
Ethical egoism can be witnessed in New England via land use disputes and decisions. States such as Connecticut and Massachusetts frequently have farmland sold to be developed residentially due to high property values. Landowners rightfully view this as economically rational. However, it collectively reduces regional food production and increases reliance on external agribusiness supply chains. This demonstrates how self-interest can clash with community sustainability. Additionally, hints of utilitarianism can be identified here, as the land barons view their actions as noble deeds to provide housing to those in need, identifying a higher pleasure in their actions that is smoke and mirrors, although the houses typically built are sold at prices few can afford in a country with an existing supply of vacant homes that outnumbers the homeless population. Through this lens it seems more beneficial to give back to the land and provide nutritious food from the already existing farmland instead of building more vacation homes or unaffordable homes for most Americans.
Divine command theory macro
Morality is grounded in the will of a higher authority in the view of divine command theory, with a substantial emphasis on stewardship and care (Congreves 2025). Religious traditions typically regard humans as the bastions of the Earth and environment who are responsible for preserving its resources. Serious fallacies reveal themselves when we analyze within this framework, namely the practice of factory farming, with 99% of American livestock being raised in concentrated animal feed operations (Anthis 2024). This leads to deplorable conditions for the livestock where they’re covered in feces, mistreated, are gavaged with food they weren’t naturally designed to eat and are pumped full of pharmaceuticals to counteract the health problems inherent in industrial farming feeding practices, which we then eat. Plato explored the relationship between divine authority and morality with his Euthyphro writing, exposing the dilemma of whether something is good because God commands it, or God commands it because it is good. Plato reinforces the idea that ethical behavior must align with higher principles. When thought of from Plato’s perspective, if stewardship is good because God commands it, then factory farming contradicts divine will as animals are treated as mere instruments of production, rather than as beings deserving of moral consideration under a framework of divine stewardship. On the other side of the coin, if stewardship is good independently of God’s will, then cruelty and environmental destruction are wrong regardless of someone’s religion. Regardless of the stance we take on Plato’s dilemma, agribusiness fails to be sanctified. Lastly, in the culture of modern free-market economic thinking, moral authority is often implicitly transferred from divine command to market outcomes, what is considered good for business or economically successful is perceived as inherently justified. This perspective echoes a secularized form of divine command theory, where the “will of the market” functions analogously to divine will, claiming legitimacy upon outcomes regardless of their ethical implications. A modern parallel is derived from the free-market mindset, comparable to the dilemma posed by Plato in the Euthyphro, are market outcomes good because they succeed, or do they succeed because they are good? If success is the primary factor that deems the evidence of moral correctness, then ethical evaluation collapses into economic performance, leaving little room to critique systems such as industrial agriculture that generate massive profits while producing widespread harm. This conflation of economic success with moral or divine favor is also reflected in contemporary cultural narratives. In various forms of popular music, such as hip-hop, financial success is frequently associated with divine blessing or providence. Well known artists such as Drake, Kanye West, Big Sean, and Jay-Z often entwine religious imagery alongside themes of wealth and achievement, reinforcing the notion that material success signals a form of higher approval or destiny. While these expressions can be understood as reflections of personal faith or resilience, they also illustrate a broader cultural tendency to equate prosperity with moral or spiritual validation. When applied to economic systems such as agribusiness, this mindset risks legitimizing harmful practices simply because they are profitable. Within this framework, the success of industrial agriculture may be interpreted as evidence of its moral legitimacy, despite its well documented environmental degradation, labor exploitation, and contribution to food inequality. This reasoning mirrors the logical pitfalls identified in divine command theory, where authority, whether divine or economic, equally substitutes for ethical justification. If we shift from divine obligation over to our societal structure, we can utilize justice virtue to evaluate how benefits and burdens are distributed.
Divine command theory micro
Issues arise in New England with the coexistence of agricultural abundance and food insecurity. Despite comparatively strong local food systems, approximately 1 out of 10 households in New England experience food insecurity (Eshleman 2015), and in Maine, figures for child food insecurity are as high as 20-25% (USDA 2026). Such a drastic imbalance raises ethical concerns about whether our current agricultural system fulfills its moral responsibility to care for both people and the land. In consideration for the framework of divine command theory, moral obligations are grounded in duties of stewardship, compassion, and provision for the vulnerable populations. The persistence worsening of food insecurity in a region capable of producing sufficient nourishment suggests a failure not of capacity, but of moral prioritization. From this perspective, the agriculture system does not simply fall short in efficiency or distribution, but it violates a fundamental ethical duty to ensure that the basic needs of all members of the community are met. To draw on Plato’s insight of the Euthyphro dilemma, this issue becomes further prominent. If caring for the vulnerable population is good because it is divinely commanded, then the current system that permits widespread food insecurity amid abundance stands in direct contradiction to that command. Conversely, if such community care is inherently good independent of divine will, then the failure to equitably distribute food resources remains morally indefensible regardless of theological justification. In either case, the coexistence of surplus and scarcity reflects a fundamental failure in moral reasoning at the structural level. Lastly, many religious traditions emphasize not only stewardship of land but also justice in distribution, such as the Social Gospel that was the focus of the church from the 1940’s to the 1980’s. This suggests that hoarding or misallocating resources constitutes a moral failure. Therefore, New England’s regional agricultural system exemplifies a broader ethical contradiction, one in which a system capable of sustaining life is also organized in a way that allows preventable deprivation to persist.
Justice virtue macro
Justice virtue concerns itself with the distribution of resources and fairness in society. It is well documented that the U.S. agricultural system portrays massive inequalities, with enormous farms receiving the vast majority of federal crop subsidy payments, over 70% of payments being collected by the top 10% of farms (EWG 2026). Additionally, farm workers, which are often immigrants, typically earn low wages and lack benefits and protections (Pillai 2025). Furthermore, the ultra-processed foods created by these farms do massive amounts of harm to the health of those who consume them. John Rawl’s theory justifies inequality only if they benefit the least advantaged. By Rawl’s standard, agribusiness falls exceedingly short, with benefits being concentrated to an elite few. Rawl’s veil of ignorance, which states society should be established in a just way that reflects no individual knowing the circumstances under which they will exist, ties perfectly into exposing the failure of the existing agribusiness system in America. Behind the veil of ignorance, no rational actor would design and implement a food system where they may be born as an exploited farm worker, a child that is food insecure, or an individual in a community that is overwhelmed by pollution. Therefore, under justice theory, the current agricultural system fails Rawls’ test of justice by principle, not just in outcomes, but by its very design. Justice theory points to some critical flaws at a foundational level, but care ethics emphasizes relationships and nurturing human connection.
Justice virtue micro
Inequality appears regionally in New England with access to food. Affordable fresh options are scarce for many urban and rural communities, while higher income earners reap the benefits of local and organic markets. This discrepancy creates a system where ethical consumption is a socioeconomic privilege rather than a universal right. From Aristotle’s virtue ethics perspective, a just society is one that cultivates moral character and enables individuals to flourish through the practice of virtuous behaviors such as justice, generosity, courage, and temperance. When access to nutritious and ethically produced food is unevenly distributed, individuals are not equally positioned to practice and master these virtues, nor to achieve what Aristotle coined as eudemonia, or human flourishing. Furthermore, this inequality comes under scrutiny within the framework of Rawls’ concept of justice as fairness. Under Rawls’ conception, social and economic inequalities are only justified if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. The current agricultural system in New England seems to violate this principle, as those with the least access to resources face the greatest barriers to obtaining healthy, ethically produced sources of food. Lastly, from behind the veil of ignorance, it is unlikely that rational actors would endorse a system in which someone’s access to basic nutritional wellbeing is correlated to income level. Therefore, the disparity in access to clean foods is not simply a suboptimal byproduct of free market forces, but rather an actuality of deep structural and systematic injustices that jeopardize collective moral integrity and individual virtue.
Care ethics macro
Care ethics places importance on empathy, relationships, and responsibility. Industrial agriculture typically weakens these connections, turning food into a commodity rather than a shared human experience. The farm labor workforce, which numbers over 2 million in the U.S., are frequently underrecognized and exploited despite their essential role in providing America’s meals. A large percentage of the farm labor workforce are illegal immigrants who work grueling hours for minimum pay under abysmal circumstances, with no ability to speak up against such treatment due to their illegal status. Carol Gilligan’s work highlights the importance of attentiveness and care, values often eclipsed and even silenced by agribusiness corporations on their quest for efficiency and profit for shareholders. The true social cost for a meal in America, especially a cheap one, is often borne by underpaid laborers, degraded ecosystems, and future generations. These costs remain largely invisible, allowing consumers to remain detached from the human and environmental consequences of their choices. Gilligan accentuates the moral responsiveness and connectedness that emerges from the prioritization of relationships rather than abstract rules, values that industrial farming keeps at an arm’s length while maintaining full control over the farmer’s livelihood. The result is industrial agriculture severing such relationships instead, between consumer and producer, between people and the land they rely on, and between the marginalized community laborers who partake in the back breaking toils required to supply the food we rely on, and their human dignity. Given this structural failure of agribusiness, it is not merely a problem of not caring, it is a system that is architecturally designed to exclude care.
Care ethics micro
New England has emerged as a leading region challenging morally bankrupt agribusiness practices. This fight poses both unique opportunities and ongoing challenges. We are blessed to have one of the strongest networks of community supported agriculture systems in the country, which nourish direct relationships between farmers and consumers. These systems reflect the core principles of care ethics by emphasizing connection, responsibility, and mutual support. Although they’ve found a considerable amount of success, rising costs and economic pressures continue to threaten the long-term viability of these systems. As a result, we can see that although care-based agriculture models show ethical promise, they struggle to be competitive and survive in a system that prioritizes productivity and profit, regardless of the externalities inflicted on social and environmental wellbeing.
Conclusion
Each ethical framework we’ve explored offers a distinct lens, but they converge on the exposure of a failed system from various perspectives. Environmental ethics condemns the system’s ecological destruction and selfishness, utilitarianism exposes its failure to maximize genuine wellbeing, egoism reveals its reliance on unjust cost externalization, divine command theory highlights its moral irresponsibility, Rawlsian justice critiques its structural inequality, and care ethics exposes its erosion of human relationships. All this ethical analysis points to a highly productive but deeply fragmented system. At the macro level, industrial agriculture achieves its objectives of generating efficiency, abundance, and economic growth. Yet across all six ethical frameworks we used to examine the industrial farming system revealed significant moral failures. These failures manifest in the externalities of environmental degradation, unequal distribution of benefits, exploitation of labor, and the erosion of meaningful human and ecological relationships. At the micro level, New England demonstrates these failures are not restricted to large industrial farms but are embedded within the broader agricultural system itself. Even in a region with boons such as sustainable sources and local food movements, issues of accessibility, affordability, fairness, and environmental impact persist. These findings propose that ethical shortcomings of agribusiness are systematic rather than isolated. Overall, no single ethical framework justifies or condemns the system. Instead, they converge on a fundamental truth, our current model of agricultural systems which is built primarily on efficiency and shareholder profit undermines the ecological and social foundations on which it depends. The solution lies in the implementation of a more ethically balanced approach, one that integrates sustainability, fairness, responsibility, and care. It is not only desirable, but pivotal for the long-term wellbeing of both humanity and the ecological systems which sustain human life.
Thank you for reading this post in my blog! This essay is a piece that I am incredibly proud of, as is all my work, but this took longer than the rest of the posts on this blog put together. Please feel free to connect with me at any of the locations below or subscribe for email notifications. Lets continue to make the world a better place, one conversation at a time!
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@Econ_Unpacked
Discord: https://discord.gg/ejNAVwTtp7
Contact email: econunpackedinquiry@gmail.com
References
Dereniowska, M. (2019, June). Do We Need Environmental Ethics?. World Economics Association. https://www.worldeconomicsassociation.org/newsletterarticles/environmental-ethics/
USGCRP. (n.d.). Fifth national climate assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program.
2023 Agricultural Statistics Annual Bulletin new england. United States Department of Agriculture. (2023). https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/New_England_includes/Publications/Annual_Statistical_Bulletin/2023/2023_NewEngland_Annual_Bulletin.pdf
Anthis, J. R. (2024, November 2). US factory farming estimates. Sentience Institute. https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estimates
Congreves, K. A. (2025, May 22). Agricultural Environmental Ethics: An emerging way to understand and solve sustainability challenges. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44264-025-00071-3
Environmental Protection Agency. (2026, March 10). Agriculture Sector Emissions. EPA. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/agriculture-sector-emissions
EWG farm subsidy database || The United States Conservation Database. Environmental Working Group. (n.d.). https://farm.ewg.org/region.php
Food insecurity rates in Maine. Food Insecurity Rates in Maine | Office of Policy Innovation & Future. (n.d.). https://www.maine.gov/future/hunger/dashboard/food-insecurity-rates
Food security in the northeast US (research). Research (Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences). (n.d.). https://agsci.psu.edu/research/food-security/about/project-narratives/food-security-in-the-northeast-us
Kffakashp. (2025, August 9). Potential implications of immigration restrictions on the U.S. agricultural workforce. KFF. https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/potential-implications-of-immigration-restrictions-on-the-u-s-agricultural-workforce/
MacDonald, J., Ollinger, M., Nelson, K., & Handy, C. (1999, March 1). Consolidation in U.S. meatpacking. Consolidation in U.S. Meatpacking | Economic Research Service. https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details?pubid=41120
Matthews, E. D., & Kurnat-Thoma, E. L. (2024, May 16). U.S. food policy to address diet-related chronic disease. Frontiers in public health. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11141542/
Zeballos, E., & Sinclair, W. (2025, September 29). Share of disposable personal income spent on food continues to decline in 2024. Share of disposable personal income spent on food continues to decline in 2024 | Economic Research Service. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/chart-detail?chartId=76967
Leave a Reply