In the article "Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal cases" by Alastair Norcross, he mainly argued that factory-farmed meat is morally wrong and that people who support it (including those consuming factory-farmed meat) are also morally wrong. The only point I'm interested in, is that he argued that the pain caused to these factory-farmed animals grossly outweighs any good that comes out of it; he didn't elaborate too much on why that is so.
What if the good that comes out of factory-farmed meat (from an economical and nutritional/gustatory point of view) outweighs the pain suffered by the animals? Assuming that is the case and it was somehow proven, then as a utilitarian (or assuming a utilitarian stance), would Norcross have no choice but to agree that is it morally correct (and permissible) for factory farming to continue the way it is, as long as that is the best way to maximize utility?
The relevant passage is relatively short and states this:
The Doctrine of Double Effect requires not merely that a bad effect be foreseen and not intended, but also that there be an outweighing good effect. In the case of the suffering of factory-raised animals, whatever good could plausibly be claimed to come out of the system clearly doesn’t outweigh the bad. (2004, "Philosophical Perspectives" Ethics 18: 234).