Welcome to Gaia! ::

A friend of mine recently asked me this ethical question about factory farm animals.

If we assume that factory farms are very bad for the environment, which both of us do agree with. *And*, we assume that the animals that are kept in factory farms are kept under conditions that would be considered torture if a human were subject to them, which both of us also agree with. Then, does it not follow that it would be morally and ethically acceptable to kill the animals living in those conditions?

I realize that some folks will disagree with those assumptions, and we can talk about that, but if we assume those are both true then shouldn't it be morally acceptable to mass kill animals living in factory farms?
Neverwise's avatar

Devoted Worshipper

9,850 Points
  • Somebody Likes You 100
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Noob wrangler 100
But they should not be in that condition in the first place. S'all about saving space and money in factory farms. Morally, I have no issues with animals raised/bred specifically for food being killed so long as it is done in a succinct and as painless as possible of a manner. I also don't have any issues with gun hunting, so long as the person with the weapon is fully capable of taking down, say, a deer with a single shot. No farting about and peppering the poor beast. That and try and use as much of the corpse as possible.
Neverwise
But they should not be in that condition in the first place. S'all about saving space and money in factory farms. Morally, I have no issues with animals raised/bred specifically for food being killed so long as it is done in a succinct and as painless as possible of a manner. I also don't have any issues with gun hunting, so long as the person with the weapon is fully capable of taking down, say, a deer with a single shot. No farting about and peppering the poor beast. That and try and use as much of the corpse as possible.


Yeah, they shouldn't be in that condition in the first place, and that was my friend's point. You have a bunch of animals who have nothing but torture to look forward to and add in the whole pumping carbon into the atmosphere thing then you end up with 'no reason for them to live any longer', at least from my point of view.
Avgvsto's avatar

Anxious Knight

Yeah that's not really the answer compared to just some economic reforms.
Interitum's avatar

Malevolent Phantom

10,350 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Champion 300
  • Mark Twain 100
IMO It is morally wrong to mass murder these animals. It is also immoral to go hunting unless you require the food to live and you kill the animal as fast and painlessly as possible, also don't capture the animal with your hunting dogs you sick ******** and then put in some small *** cage to sit there and suffer then you butcher it and cut it wrong and waste half the freaking meat and then put the rest in a freezer until it's too old to eat and you throw it out. That was a waste of that beings life and if you waste that much you don't need it any way. People like that should be shot because they have no respect for life. We evolved equally and nothing has stated it has changed.
Even though the animals are going to be tortured for a year and then killed anyway? You'd only be stopping some torture, the animals would die anyway.
Demonic Delicacy's avatar

Gracious Informer

khuan
Even though the animals are going to be tortured for a year and then killed anyway? You'd only be stopping some torture, the animals would die anyway.
Those animals wouldn't be tortured in factory farms if we didn't plan to kill them all for our food. Stop killing them for food, they stop getting tortured in factory farms.
Interitum's avatar

Malevolent Phantom

10,350 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Champion 300
  • Mark Twain 100
khuan
Even though the animals are going to be tortured for a year and then killed anyway? You'd only be stopping some torture, the animals would die anyway.


What?
haruki_jitsunin's avatar

Friendly Seeker

7,100 Points
  • Millionaire 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • Tycoon 200
This is a horribly complicated, systemic issue. Yes, the animals shouldn't be in a farm like that in the first place. While they're there, yes it might actually be more "humane" to kill them. Why are they there in the first place, though? I honestly don't have a problem with animal death or the consumption of meat. I mean, it is definitely a process of nature and was definitely part of this whole "natural selection" thing that we exist because of. Does that mean that we shouldn't be mindful of the conditions and lives of the animals? No. I think it's absolutely atrocious that the meat industry thrives and exists the way it does and refuse to take part in it, but it is only in mindfulness, in not choosing to take part in this system that these types of conditions can be eliminated. And it won't be by a personal effort, but by the effort of many. It's easy to buy meat from a market, it's extremely easy to buy factory farm meat from a market, it's easy to support this system, it's easy to fall back on the idea that "they live in horrible conditions anyway so why not kill them". What's not easy is to identify this problem, realize how your own actions are supporting this problem and then doing something to change your own behavior. It's not ever about changing the world, it's impossible to do that. It's all about changing yourself.

So, my question is: do you feel positive i knowing these conditions and eating this meat that would be in a torturous environment otherwise? That's a tough and personal question to answer.
Silk Kanishk's avatar

Magnetic Prophet

14,700 Points
  • Love Machine 150
  • Partygoer 500
  • Object of Affection 150
I think breeding animals in captivity and killing them for food is wrong. The poor creature doesn't even have a chance to survive. If you want to eat meat, then you should be willing to hunt for it in the wild.
Ask Jappleack's avatar

Greedy Consumer

Interitum
We evolved equally and nothing has stated it has changed.
Thats argueable, also why the need for somehting to state it has chnaged for you to beleive it has changed?
Interitum's avatar

Malevolent Phantom

10,350 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Champion 300
  • Mark Twain 100
We Are Organisms
Interitum
We evolved equally and nothing has stated it has changed.
Thats argueable, also why the need for somehting to state it has chnaged for you to beleive it has changed?


Not state just a little evidence, but nothing like that could exist and if someone thinks were better then other species what proof would the have?
Ask Jappleack's avatar

Greedy Consumer

Interitum
We Are Organisms
Interitum
We evolved equally and nothing has stated it has changed.
Thats argueable, also why the need for somehting to state it has chnaged for you to beleive it has changed?


Not state just a little evidence, but nothing like that could exist and if someone thinks were better then other species what proof would the have?
The proof that they can kill a thousand of those other species without them killing any of us. Humans are powerful, making species extinct too. People will always find reason to think they are better than other things as a justification. Animals might deserve better, they helped us be who we are today after all. But even kids outgrow clothing, and hermit crabs as well. Ideas change (but they are still basically the same). Humans will justify their actions, if they are unintelligent they give a bad justification, if they are intelligent they give a better one. Justifying animals suffering when we ourselves dislike suffering is extending the human family to the animal family. What happens when we do win animal rights, we might end up argueing for plant rights too. After that sunlight air ground and water rights. Then we might actually stop polluting.

Well human logic also is, 2 is better than one, two apples ar ebetter than one apple, two cells are better than one cell,w e have more cells we have more rights, or we have the winning genome of quality rather than even though we might have less genes than alot of plants and animals we destroy, its quality not quantity there.

Its simple though, humans cultural cooked meat, the cultures that didnt cook it got more diseases and died off. The cultures that only eat plants are like koala bears, if bamboo dies off or mutates they will die off rather quickly. Its better to be able to digest a greater amount of things. And nature eats animals and doesnt worry over if its moral or not, some can only eat animals. Actually eating animals developed some of our intelligence, huntign and stuff, it probably resulted in us liking wars though or something.
Interitum's avatar

Malevolent Phantom

10,350 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Champion 300
  • Mark Twain 100
We Are Organisms
Interitum
We Are Organisms
Interitum
We evolved equally and nothing has stated it has changed.
Thats argueable, also why the need for somehting to state it has chnaged for you to beleive it has changed?


Not state just a little evidence, but nothing like that could exist and if someone thinks were better then other species what proof would the have?
The proof that they can kill a thousand of those other species without them killing any of us. Humans are powerful, making species extinct too. People will always find reason to think they are better than other things as a justification. Animals might deserve better, they helped us be who we are today after all. But even kids outgrow clothing, and hermit crabs as well. Ideas change (but they are still basically the same). Humans will justify their actions, if they are unintelligent they give a bad justification, if they are intelligent they give a better one. Justifying animals suffering when we ourselves dislike suffering is extending the human family to the animal family. What happens when we do win animal rights, we might end up argueing for plant rights too. After that sunlight air ground and water rights. Then we might actually stop polluting.

Well human logic also is, 2 is better than one, two apples ar ebetter than one apple, two cells are better than one cell,w e have more cells we have more rights, or we have the winning genome of quality rather than even though we might have less genes than alot of plants and animals we destroy, its quality not quantity there.

Its simple though, humans cultural cooked meat, the cultures that didnt cook it got more diseases and died off. The cultures that only eat plants are like koala bears, if bamboo dies off or mutates they will die off rather quickly. Its better to be able to digest a greater amount of things. And nature eats animals and doesnt worry over if its moral or not, some can only eat animals. Actually eating animals developed some of our intelligence, huntign and stuff, it probably resulted in us liking wars though or something.


That doesn't justify it. At our point in evolution we can make conscious decisions about what we kill. If we find it wrong to kill humans then what makes us more important than other animals. What would the purpose even be to eat meat when we don't need it? To enjoy the flavor of food at the expense of another living being is horrible.
Ask Jappleack's avatar

Greedy Consumer

Interitum
We Are Organisms
Interitum
We Are Organisms
Interitum
We evolved equally and nothing has stated it has changed.
Thats argueable, also why the need for somehting to state it has chnaged for you to beleive it has changed?


Not state just a little evidence, but nothing like that could exist and if someone thinks were better then other species what proof would the have?
The proof that they can kill a thousand of those other species without them killing any of us. Humans are powerful, making species extinct too. People will always find reason to think they are better than other things as a justification. Animals might deserve better, they helped us be who we are today after all. But even kids outgrow clothing, and hermit crabs as well. Ideas change (but they are still basically the same). Humans will justify their actions, if they are unintelligent they give a bad justification, if they are intelligent they give a better one. Justifying animals suffering when we ourselves dislike suffering is extending the human family to the animal family. What happens when we do win animal rights, we might end up argueing for plant rights too. After that sunlight air ground and water rights. Then we might actually stop polluting.

Well human logic also is, 2 is better than one, two apples ar ebetter than one apple, two cells are better than one cell,w e have more cells we have more rights, or we have the winning genome of quality rather than even though we might have less genes than alot of plants and animals we destroy, its quality not quantity there.

Its simple though, humans cultural cooked meat, the cultures that didnt cook it got more diseases and died off. The cultures that only eat plants are like koala bears, if bamboo dies off or mutates they will die off rather quickly. Its better to be able to digest a greater amount of things. And nature eats animals and doesnt worry over if its moral or not, some can only eat animals. Actually eating animals developed some of our intelligence, huntign and stuff, it probably resulted in us liking wars though or something.


That doesn't justify it. At our point in evolution we can make conscious decisions about what we kill. If we find it wrong to kill humans then what makes us more important than other animals. What would the purpose even be to eat meat when we don't need it? To enjoy the flavor of food at the expense of another living being is horrible.
What about carnivores?

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games