You’re right. Since they’re being slaughtered anyways, we SHOULD just keep them in the cheapest, least humane living conditions possible. It doesn’t matter how they lived if they die, I guess.
Do you have no concept of "harm reduction"? Yes, not killing would be best. But that's not currently feasible given human culture. So treating animals well before slaughter is OBVIOUSLY better than treating them cruelly. Like, come on. This is a self-evident point.
It's not possible to have any kind of discussion with someone who thinks the world is black and white. You don't actually care about anything except your own moral masturbation.
It is very black and white to me. We do not need to be killing these animals and dressing murder up with words like "humane" and "free range" "happy lives!" Do not justify what is being done to these animals. Just stop murdering? Hello? Its so easy. Stop trying to justify it
This is exactly what I mean. To you, either animals are killed for their meat or they aren't. You view an industrial scale caged factory farm as the equivalent of a small family farm because both kill animals. You don't care about the quality of life those animals have between birth and murder (I'll use your word). That tells me that you DO NOT CARE about the animals in the slightest. Since they are killed for meat, you don't care if they are tortured their entire lives or given a comfortable safe life. You are fine with animals being tortured until the day that humans stop eating meat because you see that act, killing them for meat, as the only important part of their lives. If you actually cared about animals you would push for farms to treat animals with dignity between birth and slaughter while also pushing for the end of slaughtering because that would mean reducing the harm in the meantime. But I don't think you can comprehend the concept of "harm reduction".
I think dressing it up and making it look "humane" and "comfortable" eases the guilt and makes the industry more comfortable for people to accept. It's doing harm to the core issue which i want solved more than alleviating the symptoms. Let's not pretend these are happy green pastures which give these animals a nice life, instead we should be focusing on ending this process entirely.
Biological processes require consumption of other living beings. Food is also a finite resource. If vegans actually wanted to reduce the harm they make as much as possible, they would self annihilate.
They're "vegan" (except for all the killing and eating animals part) but they're "one of the good ones" so they're not against killing animals and eating their body parts, they would never consider not killing an animal.
Patting ones self on the back because they treated an animal less awful compared to other situations before killing them, when we don't have to exploit or kill them at all, is weak. Obviously less suffering and cruelty is better, but we can avoid all of it, so we should. They deserve better.
I'm not disagreeing with your general point, but I'm always very confused by statements like these. Surely you realize that the only alternative is that they don't exist at all right? They ain't gonna be free chicken roaming in the wild they'll just not be bred in the first place.
Yes, not existing at all is the preferable choice over breeding them with the intent to kill them at a fraction of their lifespan. A core aspect of veganism is rejecting the commodity status of animals, and treating them like the individual beings that they are.
If we bring a human into the world the idea is that those that that bring them into the world should nurture and protect them to give them the best life possible.
The idea of bringing a human into the world to fill a specific purpose, or even worse, to kill them to gain something from them is abhorrent, right? Vegans extend that logic to animals. It doesn't mean we have to value them to the same degree as humans, but we believe they have enough value to extend this same idea to them. If we can live without exploiting and killing sentient beings we should be working toward that.
We're not talking about humans though. Animals are totally incapable of understanding that they will be killed once mature, so they are not mentally affected by their fate in the slightest. Living conditions and method of death are far more important to them. If we could provide comfortable and enriching living conditions, coupled with a pain and stress-free death, don't you think they'd pick that instead of just not existing at all? If we can achieve that (big "if", I'll admit it), then I'd argue that's a much more humane life than being in the wild and slowly dying of diseases or being eaten alive, while constantly living in fear (which is the norm for prey animals).
Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on owning pets, specifically indoor-only cats?
I know we aren't talking about humans; even if you value non-human animals less than humans, which is normal, even for most vegans that I am aware of, what we do to non-human animals is generally wrong for the same reasons it would be wrong to subject humans to a similar experience.
You could easily raise humans to be unaware of their fate as well. If you raised kids in an isolated setting with no outside world references and purposefully avoided making them aware of death they would be non the wiser. If we raised a human in this way, gave them a terrific life, and then painlessly ended them, like in their sleep, would that be ethical?
Again not saying that is at the same moral level, but the question is specifically, why is it ok with an non-human animal, and why is it wrong for a human? What specific things are separating these situations?
I think it is also important to recognize that even if we can't see eye to eye on why this is wrong even in "good" cases, those situations are so, so rare compared factory farming. Because the "right" way of doing it costs way more, and is more resource intensive, it is simply not scalable to feed 8 billion people even if we did reduce animal product consumption dramatically. One large factory farm can output 500,000 chickens a year. This is how we kill 70 billion + terrestrial animals a year. And so animal product consumption in part is defended by these niche "good examples" that are very rare and will realistically never be the norm. From the people I've talked to even the people who try to get local meat etc aren't actively rejecting other sources at reatoraunts, friends houses, in processed food etc. So the "good" cases feel like
I agree less animals dying is better, even if the issue isn't solved, but reducing consumption is a squishy term. I know many people who "limit their meat consumption", but I basically see them choose animal products every chance they get. What reduction is good enough? 5%? 50%? A person is unlikely to be married to a nebulous reduction, after all, simply reducing is an admission that whatever it is, it isn't that bad, so fluctuations are expected. We've all tried to reduce sweets, or alcohol, or whatever, and I think most of us have probably made justifications for why it's ok "just this once", or maybe "I will make up for it next week". I don't think a vague goal of reduction is a path to massive change.
The thing is, this isn't a comparison of living and dying in the wild versus captivity (unless you are discussing hunting/ fishing). It is existence, versus non existence. I think if we bring a sentient being into existence we have the reaponsibility to take care of them, and give them a good, full life. We should not bring a sentient being into existence for the express purpose of harvesting their flesh, or turning them into a an egg/milk factory. When you comodify living things financial efficiency almost always undermines ethics.
I'd also contend that many prey species don't live in a constant state of fear in the wild. Manyive on massive herds, and their individual risk of being picked off is low unless they are young, sick, injured, or old. Fear exists, spurts of outright terror happen, but it isn't a constant. The reality of nature is neither Disney nor objective hellscape, like many things in life there is a lot more nuance.
As for pets, there are many instances where people take great care of their pets, and they live objectively good lives. What I and most vegans that I am aware of oppose is the commodity status of pets. They are bred like products and sold as such. This perpetuates sickly breeds with severe health products because they are aesthetically desirable. I had to pay $1000 + to get my rescue dog eye surgery, because his breed has their eyelids grow in a way that eyelashes actively poke at their eyeballs. Others can't even breath right. Like I said before, when money is involved, ethics generally goes down the drain. There are countless homeless dogs/cats and many in shelters, but humanity continues to breed and sell more of desirable breeds rather than taking care of the existing ones in need. While there are many who care for their pets as I said, many don't, and frankly most places have inadequate laws and monitoring to protect animals from abusive and neglectful homes.
So to summarize, many do a good job at caring for their cat/dog, but I don't think we should be buying them like products.
I don't generally care about this topic, nor am I interested in it enough to pay attention, but I appreciate finally seeing a thoughtful and rational response from a vegan. I appreciate the effort and your comment
8
u/Randallman7 6d ago
Right? "They must have a happy life" then they get slaughtered