3 ms·
So, here's what I wonder about this. I think most people who think about it can agree that a lot of factory farming conditions are terrible. Cramped quarters,
by tempestn 7y ago
So, here's what I wonder about this. I think most people who think about it can agree that a lot of factory farming conditions are terrible. Cramped quarters, lack of outdoor time, space, exercise, poor food, etc. So working toward eliminating those problems seems incontrovertibly good to me.
However, let's say hypothetically we're only talking about farms run with a focus on animal welfare. (And not just giving animals 10 square feet of 'pasture' so they can say they're free range, but really.) So the issues of poor living conditions are removed, and we're just talking about killing animals for meat. If people stopped eating meat altogether, most farm animals simply wouldn't be born in the first place. Farmers aren't going to raise animals if they can't eventually earn money from them, obviously, and most of these animals wouldn't exist in large numbers in the wild. So what I'm wondering is, for a farm animal is it not possible that a decent life followed by being slaughtered for food might be superior to no life at all?
Obviously if we think in terms of humans, that would be horrific; we consider killing humans unnecessarily an absolute moral wrong. If someone decided they would have a child, but only if they could murder them after some period of time, that's obviously monstrous. I'm just not sure that that analogy applies to farm animals who certainly are living creatures who feel pain, but don't have the same understanding of the world and their place in it that humans do. To me that's the rational reason why the the idea of killing humans could be considered differently from killing other animals. That said, I expect the real reason we instinctively feel that killing humans is wrong is more an evolutionary drive to protect our own species.
I do grant that it's uncomfortable to think about when the analogy to humans is drawn. For some I'm sure it's uncomfortable even without consciously making that connection. I can absolutely understand why someone would therefore conclude it's morally wrong to use animals for food. I'm just not sure I agree.
- atlasunshrugged 7y agoYes, I think this is a totally valid point. Where I have come out on this (just a personal opinion) is that if the animal will have a "good" life (I know super subjective, I'll leave it to some ethicists and philosophers far smarter than me to figure out what that means) then it's logical to eat meat to create the demand so more of those animals are bred and can live "good" lives. All human lives result in death today too, I don't think we would consider parents monsters for having children because they will die someday, but we might if the children would be born into hellish conditions and the parents did it for selfish reasons and not for the child.
- ChristianBundy 7y ago> I can absolutely understand why someone would therefore conclude it's morally wrong to use animals for food. I'm just not sure I agree. Why not? Your comment makes it clear that industrial animal agriculture is wrong (not to mention ecologically disastrous), but then your last sentence makes a 180 out of nowhere. It feels extreme at first, but I'd like to assure you that reducing your consumption of these industries is possible (and sometimes even easy!).
- bproctor 7y agoI thought he explained why not in the second paragraph.
- tempestn 7y agoAs I said, I'm certain many of the current industrial farming practices are wrong. I'm speaking solely about the morality of killing animals for food, and questioning whether or not that alone is unethical, even if they are raised in good conditions.
- nhlx2 7y ago> Obviously if we think in terms of humans, that would be horrific; It’s horrific in terms of animals as well.