What’s an animal to you? Would you eat a human? How about a dog? Where do you draw the line? Humans used to also shit in the woods. Do you have a toilet?
It is morally wrong. There is no gray area. Their treatment can be extraordinary, but ending an animals life when they’ve either reached a certain age for their meat or because they can’t produce something anymore is still killing a being that can feel pain, fear and love. It hurts my brain that people like you can’t get that, but judging how the modern world works I’m not the least bit surprised.
Let’s take a more extreme situation then. I have chickens. They are free to roam around the yard and do whatever they want. Eventually, when they reach the end of their lives, I kill and eat them. Suffering wise, it’s the exact same as if I hadn’t killed them, they just lose a few of their last days. Honestly it might just save them suffering, considering how most of those last days are spent in pain. Do you still think this is somehow still immoral, despite no additional suffering having been added?
If so, then I guess you’re also one of those people who think humans should live as old as they can, despite their suffering?
Why is eating the poor bird still your argument? Euthenasia is merciful, but you don’t get to decide when and you don’t do the killing yourself. And why even bring up their suffering when most chickens live arguably the most suffer-filled existence of all factory farmed animals? You don’t care about their suffering even in this hypothetical scenario.
What’s your argument agaisnt it though? This is a hypothetical scenario, what I care about or not doesn’t matter. Is it that somehow it’s the act of choosing when they die that’s immoral?
Forget about their suffering existense, in this scenario they have a better life than in nature since they don’t have to worry about predation while still being able to roam about.
What’s an animal to you? Would you eat a human? How about a dog? Where do you draw the line? Humans used to also shit in the woods. Do you have a toilet?
It is morally wrong. There is no gray area. Their treatment can be extraordinary, but ending an animals life when they’ve either reached a certain age for their meat or because they can’t produce something anymore is still killing a being that can feel pain, fear and love. It hurts my brain that people like you can’t get that, but judging how the modern world works I’m not the least bit surprised.
Let’s take a more extreme situation then. I have chickens. They are free to roam around the yard and do whatever they want. Eventually, when they reach the end of their lives, I kill and eat them. Suffering wise, it’s the exact same as if I hadn’t killed them, they just lose a few of their last days. Honestly it might just save them suffering, considering how most of those last days are spent in pain. Do you still think this is somehow still immoral, despite no additional suffering having been added?
If so, then I guess you’re also one of those people who think humans should live as old as they can, despite their suffering?
Why is eating the poor bird still your argument? Euthenasia is merciful, but you don’t get to decide when and you don’t do the killing yourself. And why even bring up their suffering when most chickens live arguably the most suffer-filled existence of all factory farmed animals? You don’t care about their suffering even in this hypothetical scenario.
What’s your argument agaisnt it though? This is a hypothetical scenario, what I care about or not doesn’t matter. Is it that somehow it’s the act of choosing when they die that’s immoral?
Forget about their suffering existense, in this scenario they have a better life than in nature since they don’t have to worry about predation while still being able to roam about.