3 ms·

It is less cruel sure, but in no ways moral or ethical considering the fact that humans directly influenced in the creation of these lives for no purpose other

It is less cruel sure, but in no ways moral or ethical considering the fact that humans directly influenced in the creation of these lives for no purpose other than instant killing.

XorNot 4y ago
Raising them for meat doesn't make much of a difference on the moral scale though. They either die then or die later, but all of them die. The output isn't wasted, it's where the chicken in cat food comes from.
- bmurphy1976 4y ago
  You can't easily raise them for meat at scale like you can hens. Roosters are highly territorial and noisy. Nobody wants a chicken farm next door, but they sure as hell don't want a chicken farm with 100,000 roosters crowing and fighting with each other all day long.
- _8j50 4y ago
  Everything in this world that lives, dies. "It will die anyways" is not good reasoning.
  - XorNot 4y ago
    Yes but the hens brought into this world and raised for meat or egglaying are eventually slaughtered. That's why they come into existence: because we want them to for that purpose. The rate and quantity of the slaughter is pretty much 1:1 with the rate at which male chicks are disposed of. How is there any moral difference between expediently terminating male chicks, and taking 48 days before doing the same to hens?
    - _8j50 4y ago
      > That's why they come into existence: because we want them to for that purpose. That's humans' intentions not why they come into existense. Just like you and I did not come into the world simply because our parents decided to, animals also are born not because of but despite human intentions. I was merely replying to that one statement. Morally, I am on the fence on this, but it might be better to let them loose into the wild where they can feed predators amd contribute to an ecosystem. For example wolves kill and endanger animals so they're hunted but chicken are easy to catch and feed upon. You still have to discard their dead bodies so whh not discard them live into the wild.

It is less cruel sure, but in no ways moral or ethical considering the fact that humans directly influenced in the creation of these lives for no purpose other than instant killing.

XorNot 4y ago

Raising them for meat doesn't make much of a difference on the moral scale though. They either die then or die later, but all of them die. The output isn't wasted, it's where the chicken in cat food comes from.

bmurphy1976 4y ago
You can't easily raise them for meat at scale like you can hens. Roosters are highly territorial and noisy. Nobody wants a chicken farm next door, but they sure as hell don't want a chicken farm with 100,000 roosters crowing and fighting with each other all day long.
_8j50 4y ago
Everything in this world that lives, dies. "It will die anyways" is not good reasoning.
- XorNot 4y ago
  Yes but the hens brought into this world and raised for meat or egglaying are eventually slaughtered. That's why they come into existence: because we want them to for that purpose. The rate and quantity of the slaughter is pretty much 1:1 with the rate at which male chicks are disposed of. How is there any moral difference between expediently terminating male chicks, and taking 48 days before doing the same to hens?
  - _8j50 4y ago
    > That's why they come into existence: because we want them to for that purpose. That's humans' intentions not why they come into existense. Just like you and I did not come into the world simply because our parents decided to, animals also are born not because of but despite human intentions. I was merely replying to that one statement. Morally, I am on the fence on this, but it might be better to let them loose into the wild where they can feed predators amd contribute to an ecosystem. For example wolves kill and endanger animals so they're hunted but chicken are easy to catch and feed upon. You still have to discard their dead bodies so whh not discard them live into the wild.