The argument
"If we didn't eat animals, they wouldn't even exist. So raising them for food is a favor: we give them life."
Problem 1: most don't have a good life
As we saw in chapter 1, many animals raised for consumption live lives that are, literally, a living hell. Bringing someone into the world to suffer isn't a favor.
Someone could reply: "Then let's reform the system so they all have good lives." Even so, there's another problem.
Problem 2: does doing a good thing give you the right to do a bad one?
Even if the animals had good lives, that doesn't give anyone the right to kill them.
Think about parents and children. Parents bring their children into life. That doesn't give parents the right to kill them later. Giving someone life doesn't make them our property.
Death is a harm because it takes away the good things someone would still have lived. So if the animal would have had a good life ahead, killing it harms it, no matter who caused it to be born.
What about those who never get born?
The text discusses a hard question: if death is bad because it prevents good things, wouldn't it be just as bad not to bring into existence an animal that would have had a good life?
The author's answer: there's a difference between harming someone who already exists and simply not creating someone new. Someone who never existed didn't lose anything, because there's nobody there to lose it.
In short
- In practice, most farmed animals live with a lot of suffering.
- Giving life doesn't give the right to kill, just as parents can't kill their children.
- Harming someone who exists is different from not creating someone new.