"Killing is fine if it's painless"
A common idea is that there's nothing wrong with killing certain animals, as long as the death is painless. This chapter sums up why this idea doesn't hold up.
Why death is a harm
Death harms because it takes away from someone all the good things they would still have lived. You don't have to feel pain to be harmed: losing good things is enough.
Answers to common objections
- "Animals don't understand death." You don't have to understand death to lose something by it, like a baby.
- "They don't make plans for the future." You don't need plans to lose good experiences either.
- "Simple pleasures aren't worth much." Eating, playing, and resting are very good things for those who experience them.
- "They have little connection to their own future." Simple minds can have a strong connection, and what matters is the good that's lost.
- "They can be replaced by others." Each animal is a unique individual; bringing another one into the world doesn't give life back to the one who died.
- "Humans lose more by dying." Even if that were true, it wouldn't justify killing animals, much less for pleasure.
Measuring the harm
How bad a death is depends on how much life is lost and what that life would have been like. A chicken killed at a few weeks old loses almost all the life it would have had.
In short
- Death is a harm because it takes away the good things to come.
- The common objections don't show that animals lose little.
- Killing painlessly is still harming.