So, here are the logical leaps I see here to make this "not unethical":<p>* we must ignore the ethical implications of killing animals for food in general<p>* we must ignore the ethical implications of keeping animals confined for their entire lives (clearly the ducks are being held against their will, otherwise the farm wouldn't need doors)<p>* we must ignore the ethical question of whether a duck who has never swam in its life can be said to have lived a good life<p>* we must ignore the ethical implications of force-feeding animals, whether it's painful for them or not<p>* we must accept that electrocution is a painless experience for ducks<p>* we must accept that being electrocuted prior to slaughter saves the duck from the experience of being killed<p>* we must ignore the ethical differences between functional meat consumption and meat consumption for pleasure and social status<p>In essence, as long as we sweep aside all of the difficult ethical questions there are no ethical problems here.
"Foie gras production should be judged not by the worst farms, but by the best, because those are the ones that I'm going to choose to buy my foie from if at all."<p>This is an interesting assumption which is not novel to foie gras advocates. For instance, if I buy my wife a diamond ring from a responsible diamond trader, I'm still supporting demand for an industry that is seeped in violence and slavery, and for an item that is unabashedly luxurious and unnecessary (my apologies, diamond lovers of HN).<p>I can see how this line of thinking becomes a slipper slope, e.g., are we all implicit supporting sweat shops when we buy clothes made in America? I think the answer to that is no, and the answer of culpability in general depends on a number of factors ranging from the necessity of the item to the severity of the atrocities occurring in an industry.<p>In that respect, I don't think an industry should be judged by its outliers, but by its median. The median foie gras industry is not La Belle Farms.