> 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.

> 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.