But surely the rights based approach is implicitly placing a value on what is “wrong”. If a right is a moral absolute then they are saying the sum of all negative factors associated with violating the pigs right is infinite – that is still a value judgment.

That is only because a deontological approach has implicit value judgments in it – if we made those explicit it would be consistent with utilitarianism. Ultimately, if we are willing to value something “infinitely” this is still an assumption – stating that we are using a different moral framework is merely a way of cloaking the assumption 😉

As I said earlier “rights based” was the wrong term to use on my part as I am using utilitarianism. My fundamental point is that a market between humans may not capture the impact on pigs welfare – a factor that needs to be taken into account.

Now if we state what we think the impact on pigs welfare is then we can move on and figure out the optimal solution – if it is infinite then a regulation banning said stall meat would be the best solution because it is cheaper to implement than a tax. However, I would still see this policy decision as a result of a defined externality on pigs.

I think the idea of an efficient solution results from your preference for a utilitarian approach to the problem. If one were to take a more deontological approach then the resulting moral judgment might be different.

Distribution is definitely important – which is why it makes sense to go to government.

However, I don’t have an issue with us paying farmers if that is the efficient solution.

Ultimately, you have specific value judgments (namely the value of the welfare loss of pigs) here which are leading you to a conclusion where we do not compensate the farmers – that is definitely fine and can fit within the general framework.

This still only tells us how much humans value pigs welfare though – its doesn’t tell us how much pigs value pigs welfare.

Any market between humans will only capture how much humans value the welfare of pigs – and unless humans value the welfare of pigs just as much as pigs do this will lead to a negative externality on pigs. If we think that government should be representative of all sentient beings then this could be used as justification for a tax.

Even if there is a group that DOES value pig welfare as much as pigs they have to be able to negotiate for an appropriate transfer – that is implicitly what a government IS doing by setting a tax.

Of course, I agree that it is very difficult to ascertain exactly how much pigs value the comfort of not being in a stall, but I’m not convinced that merely allowing humans to trade on the fact pigs are free range will lead us to an optimal outcome. It takes us a LONG WAY there, but there is still an argument for a tax.

I look at the problem more in epistemic terms: people disagree on what an acceptable level of treatment for pigs would be. A government mandate involves one group’s judgement being taken as correct and enforced accordingly. If you leave it to the market, you get some sort of weighted average of diverse human evaluations of the moral worth of animals. Even if you think animal welfare does have moral worth apart from human preferences, relying on human preferences may be the best practical way of ‘discovering’ the appropriate level of welfare.

Imagine yourself 50 years ago, or in the South of the US. Someone contends that it is unnecessary to give black people any rights or worry about what they think or legislate to improve their situation. If a bunch of white people care enough about them they can just pay the racist white people to ensure equal treatment of the black people. As long as the money keeps flowing and we have good monitoring mechanisms, the equal treatment of black people will result.

I don’t think that those who care should have to buy the equitable treatment of those who have no voice. I think they should have a right to equitable treatment. That holds across people and animals.