A strong justification could be an individual selling drugs to fund medical care for a dying family member. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I think that would count as a mitigation or perhaps excuse. It doesn't justify the act; it only explains the motive.
To justify selling a particular drug (say, morphine) to a particular person (say, one who is terminally ill and looking for a way out, though suicide is illegal) because you believe that person should have a right to that drug would be a justification. IMO.

Future generations will be far too busy trying to dig basic necessities out of the rubble to give us much thought beyond the odd "bastards" over their shoulder. And they won't have any animals to think or care about, except maybe some rats to hunt for dinner.

So you think that sustaining their living is not a justification because the risks from making changes are not risky enough? — Apustimelogist

Not from my POV. (Remember, I didn't ask anyone to justify anything.) We all have different perspectives, convictions and sensibilities. Whether a justification is valid, each person has to negotiate with their own conscience. But it's an interesting question.

Nothing is guaranteed. Many farmers do not sustain their living when they refuse to change. Many lose their farms and livelihood, are bought out by corporations or foreclosed by banks. There is risk in change and risk in no change; there is risk in farming and in every walk of life; there is risk in life. I'm saying, consider your options, your long-term goals and your priorities.

That seems implied when you gave the question: "How can we still justify... " — Apustimelogist

Only I didn't ask that question, and I don't think the OP was asking how the farmer justifies his living, but how the consumer justifies his food choices. That's just a guess, of course.

I guess it depends on economics. I'm sure if more ethical choices were economically more lucrative, farmers would jump on it. I can't speak for whether such possible changes present significant economic risk to farmers that threaten thwie livelihoods. Possibly for some in some places. — Apustimelogist

Most agribusiness is not owned by 'a farmer'. Many farms are held by families, so the decisions are made by several senior members. The living they provide can be precarious, but many of these farmers have changed their methods according to the consumers' changing preferences and to reduce their dependence on suppliers. However, the corporate investors don't need to be responsive to public sentiment or local market conditions.
There is always risk. But there is also much to be gained - and not strictly in terms of financial return. Farmers who adopt sustainable methods, stop using chemical fertilizers, etc. do have smaller yields in the first couple of years, but also save money, as well as their own health and that of their soil. Dairy farmers who don't remove newborn calves from their mothers do have to give up part of their milk quota for six months, but the cows produce better quality milk and live twice as long, and the calves thrive. The long term benefits of an ecological or ethical choice are not immediately obvious. There is always choice.

Maybe he doesn't need to justify it. Not everyone has the same sensibilities.
But I do question why a farmer who operates on a large enough scale to make a living in the livestock side of agribusiness wouldn't have choices, both is what he cultivates and how he goes about it.

Just so, and well farmed animals will suffer less stress, be better fed, and protected from disease and parasites than their wild cousins. — unenlightened

I don't think any comparison to nature is valid. We took ourselves out of nature a long time ago, and have done everything our clever imagination could invent to protect ourselves from nature. The only thing nature gives animals that we refuse them is liberty - one of the things we most prize for ourselves.

The operative word there is "well". Factory farming doesn't do well by animals and factory living doesn't do well by humans. With an industrial mindset, we tend not to do things well - just more. It's the same with travel and dwellings and clothing and work. Not better, just bigger, taller, slicker, faster, more.
(I lived on a small family farm in my youth, where the life of the pigs and chickens was comfortable enough, if short, but I hated the more gentle killing, too. I hated gutting, plucking and cleaning the entrails - kids' work. I hated the smells, the fluids, the mess. Milking the goat and looking for the eggs was all right.)

Often I feel we project our own capacity to suffer onto animals but I think we're far worse off in terms of our capacity to suffer. — Nils Loc

That must be comforting.
Still, it's not entirely about 'capacity', is it? It's more about how many of us - the ones who use most of the world's resources and gobble up most of the animals - escape suffering, or hope to; whereas, for a steer, piglet or fryer chicken, a horrible death in adolescence is inevitable.

Humans are probably the most angst ridden animal in the history of Earth. — Nils Loc

With excellent reason. As Mark Twain said: "Humans are the only animal that blushes - or needs to."

I've often admired vegetarianism, and have even tried to 'go vegetarian' for quite long periods, but living in a meat-based culture, and having been brought up consuming meat, it's hard to find the motivation to continue with it. — Wayfarer

Ours wasn't that hard. After we moved to the country, my SO asked where to build the chicken coop. I said I didn't want chickens. "Why not?" "Who's going to kill them? Not me!" "Me either. But wait, that's hypocrisy, having other people do your killing." "Yes, it is." "So what's the alternative?"
We bought a vegetarian cookbook and agreed to try it for a month. Turned out okay. Turned into a year, then 35 years.
We still eat eggs (free range, local) and some dairy products (oat milk mostly, but real sour cream and cheese) and I put some chicken soup on the dry cat food.
We're still hypocrites, but feel a little better about it.

The subject has come around a few times before, so don't be upset is people have lost interest.

Please do not hesitate to make several arguments at once. — LFranc

Ecology and climate change.
Cattle grazing takes huge tracts of land from the natural environment, displacing wildlife, causing massive loss of oxygen-producing forest, and polluting. On a small scale - independent family farms with a few milk cows - this causes no problem, as the cattle can browse in orchards and fallow fields; on the industrial scale, it wreaks havoc
The beef and dairy industries contribute substantially to global CO2 and methane emissions. Not just from the infamous bovine belches, but from all of the machinery involved in their slaughter, processing, transport and refrigeration.
While a lot of people don't mind about the animals' suffering, they might consider the health effects on humans of a meat-heavy diet.

It's not really an original idea. I just scaled it up to fit your hypothesis.

Looking at the universe in this way may make more sense. — Thales

If you start with some fairly implausible premises, yes. God exploded and bits of his body have been decaying ever since. Nice.

Because they are smarter, and they know best. At least in their own minds. If there was going to be a democratic vote on same sex marriage, I'd bet everything I own that it would be outlawed. "It's not good for society.". "It erodes our values." "It's a slippery slope. Soon we'll have to allow people to marry their dog." "They are equal. They have the same freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex that everybody else has." — Patterner

Ah, I see. No, individual people don't vote for "society" or "values"; they vote according to their personal concerns. Special interest blocs, such as business and churches launch propaganda campaigns to convince people that their own interests are endangered by someone else's. For example, drugs were not an issue for voters until after Anslinger declared a crusade against marijuana n the 1930's - because Prohibition was ending, and a new scapegoat had to replace alcohol, for a great big government agency to enforce. Much mileage was got from it by the Nixon administration and again by Reagan. The same kind of things happened with abortion and equal marriage: nobody much cares, until a political faction (to curry favour with a religious bloc) inflates it into a great big bogeyman.

Because the two sides have drastically different ideas of what is good for everyone, and many are not as concerned with what's good for everyone as with what's good for them. — Patterner

Not many people have original ideas about what's good for others. But a very few, who don't give a rat's ass what's good for anyone but themselves control the mass media and sway the populace with vague threats and hollow promises.
Hence my caveat of a robust, well-constituted democracy. What you're describing is neither: it's the result of a fatally flawed foundation, long slow efforts to correct the original mistakes and then massive corruption of the entire structure.

If the majority think what's good for everyone is incompatible with what some minority wants, — Patterner

If. But why would the majority think that way? Each person is not voting for "what's good for everyone"; each person is voting for what she or he wants for themselves. If that coincides with what others also want for themselves - and it's quite likely to - than it ends up being good for everyone.
Specific instances: old age pensions, public education, unemployment insurance, public transit.
The needs of the many do outweigh the wants of the few, because the needs of all are the same. But there are always a few who want more and are willing to take it away from the many. That's how democracy is corrupted and freedom is lost.

Oppressive measures tend to be advocated by minorities who want special privileges, rather than the majority who just want security. Of course, I did stipulate a

a reasonable constitution (no mass exclusions; equitable laws), where democratic process has been relatively uncorrupted — Vera Mont

If there is a state religion, military occupation, caste system or ethnic discrimination at the nation's core, democracy cannot work.

Democracy doesn't promote freedom or equality. — Patterner

Unless the participants want those things. Overall, in countries with a reasonable constitution (no mass exclusions; equitable laws), where democratic process has been relatively uncorrupted (not bought or coerced by a single interest bloc) for a few generations, the trend is toward equality and personal liberty. Because people all need and want pretty much the same things, when we vote for what's good for ourselves, we're also voting for the good of others.

We have an exceptional imagination, combined with an inflated self-image. Other animals live in the world as they find it. We want the world to be organized around us, for us and controlled by us. So we invent a human with superpowers who considers us special, pays attention to us, is flattered by our praise and charmed by our sacrificed children; to whom we can address requests and from whom we can expect favours.

The proof isn't in the institutions, it is in my immediate perceptions. — Pantagruel

Subjective experience, yes. We all have this. It's sufficient to convince us - to the point of basing all our institutions on it. We cannot do otherwise.

The evidence is so overwhelmingly on the side of freedom of will (it is the basis of all law, qua responsibility for actions, which is the foundation of civilization) — Pantagruel

Doesn't that seem circular to you? The proof for free will is in the institutions predicated on the presumption of free will.
Yes, we feel, think and act 'as if' - so we may as well believe it. Whether it is objectively true makes no difference to our subjective experience.

If this isn't free will, I don't know what is. — Igitur

Does anyone?

you would be talking about that instead of talking about other people — Tarskian

Well, it would be boring to talk about myself all the time. Other people are interesting, too.

You seek to personally attack other people. I don't. — Tarskian

How odd!

Finally, what is the motivation for even asking the question? The only one that I can think of is "denial of responsibility for the consequences of ones' actions." — Pantagruel

Good and successful ones as well as bad. And everyone else's. There is no advantage to be gained.
The motivation is an irresistible human drive to ask questions, even the silly ones, the too-diffucult ones and the ones that have no answers.

That's it!

At least, I pretend .... You don't. — Tarskian

Nailed it, finally!

Isn’t our will not free because of limits, constraints, and entanglements? — praxis

Among other things. There is all that previous cause-and-affect stuff threading through the universe since its inception - bang or whimper, who knows? There are all the other influences, noticed and unnoticed, that have affected our thinking, perception, judgment and desires. There are a million things we don't know about that may have a bearing on every decision we make, every action we take....

I have no faith in the freedom of will, but I live as if it were a constant reality - because: What are the options?

If we had free will it seems like we wouldn’t make so many bad choices. — praxis

Well, there's other stuff at play. Stupidity and ignorance limit the range of freedom to choose. So do physical constraints and emotional entanglements. Sometimes the choice as we perceive it is not the real choice available, and sometimes reason is the least significant factor in a decision.

Looking at the level of global self-organizing processes of a living system will reveal a non-linear reciprocal causality that moves between the global and the elemental. — Joshs

Aha. It also oscillates backward and forward in time. Well, why not?
Of course, I don't know what self-organizing means in any global context, nor how Kant or Hume could have demonstrated that events in the world are uncaused. But that's okay; I'm not wedded to any philosophers, only to a physicist.

Put differently, in complex systems the past is changed by the present that it functions in. — Joshs

Sure events are rewritten in partisan histories, time travel stories and human memories. I've never seen it in a chemical reaction; thus remain unswayed.

No, I haven't. I'll put it on the list.

You aren’t limited to one act. At each moment there are an unfathomable series of acts being committed. — NOS4A2

How many of those have you committed in the past second? Each of your reasoned decisions can only result in one action.

In one case the basic biology and metaphysics is dead wrong. Nothing else determines one’s actions. — NOS4A2

Prove it. We simply cannot know from internal experience what confluence of factors caused all the previous experiences.
You believe one version of events, I believe another. No winners or losers - it just is.

Given this, we can conclude we could have acted differently for the simple reason we are not limited to only one act. — NOS4A2

In any given situation, you are, quite literally limited to only one act. Thinking you 'could have' acted differently is natural: if the act turned out to be incorrect, you can regret it and wish you could back and choose a different path. But you can't. If it turns out to be right, you can congratulate yourself. No harm in that.
It simply doesn't matter.

If you deny freedom, then you excuse yourself from responsibility for everything that freedom implies, but also forgo whatever benefits it confers. — Pantagruel

Denial or acceptance doesn't change anything. If you believe in free will, you can rationalize and justify your actions; if you don't, you can excuse yourself on those grounds. The benefits are either available or not; they're neither gained nor lost through belief.

Consider him considered. Plus Paul the fake apostle. That's two, I suppose you can add Socrates and Darrell Standing - still not a universal condition.

Kant says the "idea of freedom" is sufficient to freedom. — Pantagruel

That's a nice position to take outside a prison cell.
Of course you're not wrong. If you believe it, you experience it and it's true for you.
The fact that 13 billion years of atomic interaction have led up to your existence, your environment and your reasoning process need not intrude on that experience. We didn't witness all that, don't know about the details. It doesn't intrude on my experience, or most other people's.

If the “body and brain make the decisions”, and you are the body and brain, how are you not making decisions? — NOS4A2

By the fact your conscious awareness, which is only in the top 10% of the brain, doesn't know all the processes that lead to a decision, only the final result. Yes, it's 'you' deciding, but you can't have decided differently.
It doesn't matter. We feel as if, think as if and act as if we were making original, independent decisions, so we may as well believe it.

Sure. But the brain-body is an iceberg: most of it is beneath the level of consciousness.

does this not imply that I have free will? If so why not ? — kindred

Yes, but it's an illusion. Your body and brain make the decisions a split second before you're actually aware of them.
But it doesn't matter: You experience the preceding indecision, consider the options, then act on what has been decided. Other people judge your actions as if you had been free to do otherwise.
You may as well believe in free will, since we live as if we had it.

Metabolism and alcohol tolerance varies widely. Some heavy drinkers are able to stop when they decide it's enough; some social drinkers nobody would consider alcoholics cannot get through a day without a couple of glasses. Some people start and slurring their words after two drinks, while others can hold their liquor and not appear drunk even when they are. It's the same with how much drinking affects judgment: one may be in perfect command of their mind, but lose physical co-ordination, while another can walk a straight line and forget where they live....
...not that it has a whole lot to do with authoritarian government, but a great many T***p supporter seem to sport substantial beer bellies.

desperately wants to "prove" things about me, — Tarskian

I have no need or desire to prove anything, nor do I give a flying fig about 'you' - who or whatever that is. Your own words speak clearly enough.

All things considered, it's better to have money than not, but do you think being rich will make you happy? Or is a necessary condition for happiness? — RogueAI

It is if you're entirely devoid of sensibility and scruples. You can 'believe in' honour simply by throwing a few pennies at a minstrel to sing about it. You can have all the peasant girls you want, because they don't have honour and you're immune from the law.