A surprising argument
Some people say we should eat animals for their own good. The reasoning goes:
- animals raised for consumption live in suffering, so killing them would free them from it;
- in the wild, most animals also suffer a lot and die young, because too many babies are born and almost all of them die soon. So fishing and hunting would cut that suffering short.
First problem: there are other ways to help
If someone really cared about these animals' good, they'd argue for other things:
- for farmed animals, stop breeding them into these conditions and improve the lives of the ones who already exist;
- for wild animals, look for ways to reduce their suffering, for example helping with diseases or controlling how many are born in non-cruel ways.
Eating the animal isn't the only way, or the best way, to reduce suffering.
Second problem: killing doesn't fix the cause
In the wild, the big problem is that too many babies are born, and most die very young. Killing an adult animal for food doesn't change that. The cause of the suffering is still there.
The author's conclusion
People who use this argument usually don't support any of the other ways to help. That suggests their concern for animals is just an excuse to keep eating them, not the real reason.
In short
- Some say eating animals frees them from suffering.
- There are better ways to help that don't involve killing them.
- The argument is usually an excuse to keep consuming them.