3 ms·

I can't answer for everyone, but in the interest of continuing conversation my answer to your question in the last sentence would yes. It would be better for a

I can't answer for everyone, but in the interest of continuing conversation my answer to your question in the last sentence would yes. It would be better for an animal to have never existed than to have its entire existence be measured by the utility of killing it and butchering it for people to eat.

gridlockd 7y ago
All life leads to death, in nature or captivity. Pretty much any animal will be eaten upon death, by predators, scavengers, or microbes. Sometimes it will be killed to be eaten. Death follows wild animals at every step. Captive animals can live better lives than wild animals. They can be treated well. That's my premise. You can have the position that either such life is just meaningless suffering and that its non-existence is better than its existence.
- athriren 7y ago
  But the purpose of a wild animal is not to be killed and eaten. I’m not convinced you could accurately describe in words what the purpose of a wild animal is. However, it is easy to describe what the purpose of beef cattle. It is to be killed and be eaten by the same animal who has bred them to have high muscle content and caged them. “Captive” animals is entirely too broad a class. Pets have great lives much of the time. I am talking about animals bred and raised for human consumption only, and I do believe those lives are meaningless suffering based on the goal of that life. Extending the argument, if a person were birthed solely to be an organ farm for a wealthy individual, that would also be meaningless suffering even if they were treated “well” for most of their life. Just my opinion. Thanks for discussing!
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > But the purpose of a wild animal is not to be killed and eaten. I’m not convinced you could accurately describe in words what the purpose of a wild animal is. A wild animal doesn't have a purpose. It just is. It will die and it will get eaten anyway. > However, it is easy to describe what the purpose of beef cattle. It is to be killed and be eaten by the same animal who has bred them to have high muscle content and caged them. Fair enough. > I am talking about animals bred and raised for human consumption only, and I do believe those lives are meaningless suffering based on the goal of that life. Feeding some other being isn't entirely meaningless. Also, if the animal was living the best life it could live, is it still suffering? If so, then all life is suffering. > Extending the argument, if a person were birthed solely to be an organ farm for a wealthy individual, that would also be meaningless suffering even if they were treated “well” for most of their life. That's the plot of "The Island". Obviously, it sounds morally repulsive, but from the perspective of such a life lived subjectively, it's better than most lives lived throughout human history.

gridlockd 7y ago

All life leads to death, in nature or captivity. Pretty much any animal will be eaten upon death, by predators, scavengers, or microbes. Sometimes it will be killed to be eaten. Death follows wild animals at every step. Captive animals can live better lives than wild animals. They can be treated well. That's my premise. You can have the position that either such life is just meaningless suffering and that its non-existence is better than its existence.

athriren 7y ago
But the purpose of a wild animal is not to be killed and eaten. I’m not convinced you could accurately describe in words what the purpose of a wild animal is. However, it is easy to describe what the purpose of beef cattle. It is to be killed and be eaten by the same animal who has bred them to have high muscle content and caged them. “Captive” animals is entirely too broad a class. Pets have great lives much of the time. I am talking about animals bred and raised for human consumption only, and I do believe those lives are meaningless suffering based on the goal of that life. Extending the argument, if a person were birthed solely to be an organ farm for a wealthy individual, that would also be meaningless suffering even if they were treated “well” for most of their life. Just my opinion. Thanks for discussing!
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > But the purpose of a wild animal is not to be killed and eaten. I’m not convinced you could accurately describe in words what the purpose of a wild animal is. A wild animal doesn't have a purpose. It just is. It will die and it will get eaten anyway. > However, it is easy to describe what the purpose of beef cattle. It is to be killed and be eaten by the same animal who has bred them to have high muscle content and caged them. Fair enough. > I am talking about animals bred and raised for human consumption only, and I do believe those lives are meaningless suffering based on the goal of that life. Feeding some other being isn't entirely meaningless. Also, if the animal was living the best life it could live, is it still suffering? If so, then all life is suffering. > Extending the argument, if a person were birthed solely to be an organ farm for a wealthy individual, that would also be meaningless suffering even if they were treated “well” for most of their life. That's the plot of "The Island". Obviously, it sounds morally repulsive, but from the perspective of such a life lived subjectively, it's better than most lives lived throughout human history.