Do the animals experience more suffering than if they lived in the wild? Is industrial slaughter more or less traumatic than death in the wild? Are there any benefits animals experience living in captivity vs living in the wild? Is there anything positive about more such animals getting to live in the first place due to demand for meat?

Those are good questions, but about a different topic (except the last one). The choice here is not between raising animals for eating in factories as opposed to raising them in the wild. It's between raising them in factories versus not bringing them to life at all.

Wild animal suffering is a different beast altogether.

Your last question is on the point though. Do the animals raised for meat have lives worth living?

Is it better for a being to not exist entirely than suffer? If so, then would this imply that if animals suffer even more in the wild that they should be wiped out?

Yes. If you had the choice between having a child that would live its entire life in agony, or not having that child, I think it's obvious which is better.

No. For the same reason that murdering your 4 year old is not ethically equivalent to using birth control.

Should we sterilize animals in the wild since they suffer too, possibly even more than animals in captivity?

why would animals in wild suffer more than in captivity? In captivity animals go through hell, tiny living spaces, shit and eat in same place, hormones injected, little freedom. Tons of videos on youtube if you feel like watching some gore.

It's not about taking suffering away. Animals born in the wild live their life naturally. Animals created by us in farms are raised for one thing, for human consumption. If an animal wants to run away in wild and do it's thing, it has that choice. In captivity, we force the choice humans made for them.

Basically if we have slightest amount of empathy for our pets and are willing to apply that to other animals, eating meat doesn't look enticing.

Many cat adoption centers won't let people adopt cats if they'll let them outside. And those cats are living a better life than squirrels. I disagree with that, but the way I'd put it is, eating wild animals (modulo overfishing) is unquestionably morally right, but with captured animals, well, you noted that they're injected with hormones. That doesn't make the animals unhappy. I think you should concentrate on what the animal's mental state is, and not get distracted by aesthetics.

>eating wild animals (modulo overfishing) is unquestionably morally right

How did you come to that conclusion?

I don't think it's anywhere close to "unquestionably".

I didn’t use “unquestionably” in any sense which is obviously false, like, say, some sense that would imply I’m unaware of vegans. I came to that conclusion by gut instinct.

By that criteria, I can't say pets necessarily have a better life, either.

> why would animals in wild suffer more than in captivity?

Not necessarily more in every case but they do suffer in many different ways. Nonhuman animals in the wild are routinely exposed to: starvation, dehydration, disease, injuries, predation, parasitism and extreme weather conditions:

> The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.

– Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

> It's not about taking suffering away. Animals born in the wild live their life naturally.

A "natural" life does not necessarily mean a good one.

> Animals created by us in farms are raised for one thing, for human consumption. If an animal wants to run away in wild and do it's thing, it has that choice.

The choice to do what? The vast majority of nonhuman animals receive no help with their suffering. There are exceptions of course like when we help by rescuing trapped animals, vaccinating and healing injured and sick animals, caring for orphaned animals etc. But the general rule is a very short life (most nonhuman animals in the wild don't live to adulthood) with far more suffering experienced than happiness.

> Basically if we have slightest amount of empathy for our pets and are willing to apply that to other animals, eating meat doesn't look enticing

No disagreement here, but the same empathy should be given to nonhuman animals suffering in the wild and we should help to reduce their suffering as much as practically possible. Widespread interventions aren't practical now due to a lack of knowledge and resources but our future descendants may well be in a better position to make an effective difference.

Further reading:

* https://foundational-research.org/the-importance-of-wild-ani...

* https://www.animal-ethics.org/wild-animal-suffering-section/...

* http://www.olemartinmoen.com/wp-content/uploads/TheEthicsofW...

The answer to the existence question depends on what you consider to be more valuable: life or suffering.

As to the second question, that is an active topic of research:

https://foundational-research.org/the-importance-of-wild-ani...

with some info on Wikipedia as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_animal_suffering#Ecology_...

If avoiding suffering is categorically more important than living, then since all living things suffer, the logical conclusion is that all life should be wiped out.

From my perspective, the conclusion seems to be wrong, and thus I deny the first premise.

The question can be formulated in a couple of ways: how much suffering outweighs the benefits of living?

Or, is there an amount of happiness that outweighs some amount of suffering? Among utilitarians, that's one of the major differences.

Your argument is valid and has been made before, and the answers are varied:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_utilitarianism#The_be...

I find this conundrum fascinating and during a deep dive into obscure corners of Youtube I discovered there is a number of people that carried this logic throughout. They are called "life extinctionists". They indeed believe that life is suffering and thus it would be a net positive if all life went extinct. You may have thought the "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" was fringe but this is so outrageous it becomes interesting to understand the logic. I can't find more links at the moment.

The debate between living vs avoiding suffering has very important implications for artificial life, artificial consciousness, artificial intelligence, and even space colonization and curing aging.

And if not, does that mean we should ban contraceptives?

Not getting the connection here. I don't think contraceptives are used to prevent the existence of a child living a life of suffering. They seem most often used to avoid inconvenience on the side of the potential parents.

One could argue that billions of children have no chance to exist because of contraceptives, just as you argue that billions of animals have no chance to exist if we stopped breeding them.

Oh I see, if existence is worthwhile, even in the face of suffering, then contraceptives are preventing something worthwhile. Yes, the logic applies here too.

And, it raises an interesting question about the moral gravity of preventing existence.

If they don't exist they can't be harmed by not being brought into existence; since there is no one there to suffer a deprivation.

You could use the same questions to attempt to sow doubt about whether or not human slavery is wrong, and I think that is the most disturbing thing about this line of argumentation.

Perhaps different moral standards apply to humans?

I just don't attribute the same value to animal life than to human life.

I don't even attribute the same value to life of different species. I don't think that worm farms are as bad as cow farms.

I tend to buy organic/free range animal products. I think factory farms are terrible, I would not mind seeing them gone, but imposing free range would be terrible for the environment.

Free range ones are not too unethical as they provide to animals close to the best they could hope for if they were free.

> imposing free range would be terrible for the environment

It would have to be coupled with other measures to limit resources depletion, but it's the right thing to do imho. It would raise the price much higher, factoring in humane treatment. Sales would drop due to this higher price, there wouldn't be as many farm animals as now.

See? That's the thing. I agree that in the absolute that's a good thing, but done badly, that could just make us lose the fight against climate change by removing tons of forest to feed cattle.

That's why I wish we solve the environmental issues first, as well as the food security of the whole population.

People aren't going to start keeping the equivalent numbers of livestock as pets. If factory farmed animals fall out of fashion, most of these animals will all die without reproducing and their bloodlines will cease to exist.

I agree that factory farming isn't ideal, but it seems to me that it is less ideal from the perspective of the animal for their entire bloodline to be terminated. To make a strong argument against factory farming, you have to provide a feasible alternative that IMO doesn't exist.

The question really comes down to whether or not you consider the opportunity to experience life, even a particularly difficult life, as a blessing.

"The question really comes down to whether or not you consider the opportunity to experience life, even a particularly difficult life, as a blessing."

A life born of slavery, torture, and slaughter is not a life worth living. An animal doesn't really have the idea of a bloodline or legacy (just the primal urge to reproduce). The rationalization that a life of suffering is somehow doing the animal a favor is just asinine.

Personally, I would accept any form of life before I chose not to exist at all, because I view life itself as a blessing.

I understand that this isn't a philosophy that I share with everybody but you should still be respectful of it.

Just how shitty of a life do you need to have to not be worth living? People who spend their lives in prison don't usually kill themselves. You can read stories about people captured as prisoners of war who have no hope that they will ever escape, but they don't attempt to kill themselves. Are they being "asinine"?

Really? Personally, if I died and there was a deity that gave me a choice to either be reincarnated into a slave that would be tortured from birth to death only to be eaten by my slavers at the end or the deity would go back in time to make it so my parents never met, I'd wholeheartedly choose the latter.

I'm not much of a philsopher, but if you're at all interested in the other side of thinking I would suggest Viktor Frankl. He was a jewish person in a nazi concentration camp and he make a much stronger argument than I can for this point of view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Frankl

> After enduring the suffering in these camps, Frankl concluded that even in the most absurd, painful, and dehumanized situation, life has potential meaning and that, therefore, even suffering is meaningful.

Not to minimize his suffering, but spending ~3 years out of his 92 year life being tortured isn't the same as a whole life of torture with no meaning or hope of escape.

Yeah, it's not like the Nazi's were breeding Jews for the express purpose of a life of slavery, torture, and slaughter.

I think comparing it is a false equivalency. Also Godwin's Law.

Thank you for the link!

After reading a little bit about meaning, it seems that it's something that has to be found first

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_(existential)

so even if there's meaning in the most miserable of lives, it's not guaranteed that it will be found. However, I haven't found anything suggesting that meaning makes life worth living, only a passing mention of it bringing happiness, which doesn't square with my understanding of torture or concentration camps. Am I misunderstanding what meaning is?

So by extension, don't you have an ethical obligation to have as many children as possible regardless of the quality of life you can provide them?

At least they'll have a life that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

I bet you $10 they are a forced-birther.

Under His Eye. Blessed be the fruit.

I believe abortion is generally immoral, but I also believe that my opinion is not important and should not dictate public policy.

And when I say generally immoral, it obviously becomes nuanced when rape or young age is involved.

My parents decided to have an abortion because they were not financially ready to have children. I probably wouldn't exist if they hadn't. Does that mean their abortion had more right to live than I?

My parents lived for years with the guilt that had been instilled in them by their religious upbringing. It was one of the hardest decisions they ever had to make so they could give their future offspring the best life possible.

Research has shown that abortion laws lead to lower crime rates, lower poverty and a higher educated populous. My sisters and I are living proof of that.

I certainly agree that there can be a lot of utility in abortions. Frankly that's the major reason why I don't support abortion legislation. I am somewhat a utilitarian and I understand that there are instances where the utility might outweigh the ineherent immorality. But I do believe that there is an inherent immorality.

Similarly, I think it is immoral to use force to get other people to do what you want. But that quickly becomes a nuanced argument when you start taking public safety into account, or crime prevention. Life doesn't take place in a vacuum so I'm not trying to pass judgement.

A life where you're tortured for a year and then are slaughtered.

I guess that's how the slaveowners thought back in the day too.

It is recklessly ignorant to compare ownership of animals to humans

Exactly!

> The question really comes down to whether or not you consider the opportunity to experience life, even a particularly difficult life, as a blessing.

This seems to be an extreme pro-life point of view. You could ask exactly the same question about contraceptives.

Just because I don't think it's unethical to produce life in that circumstance, doesn't mean that I think it's your ethical imperative to produce life. Things don't go immediately from unethical to a moral imperative, there is a substantial gap that needs to be crossed.

> Things don't go immediately from unethical to a moral imperative, there is a substantial gap that needs to be crossed.

I would accept that in the general case, but since you let your utilitarian views slip, I have to ask: what's the difference?

When something is immoral, it means it has a negative utility, and therefore it should be avoided. When something is moral, it has a positive utility, and therefore it's something that should be strived for, barring any other activity with greater utility. In my eyes, that makes every moral thing a utilitarian's moral imperative, with the only gap being things that have no moral value.

How does my view differ from yours?

> barring any other activity with greater utility

I can think of a number of activities that would provide greater utility than attemting to impregnate as many women as possible.

I'm not a pure utilitarian and I see a distinction between the concepts of morality and utility. Mostly because I'm not capable of gauging utility all the time, so I can fall back on broader moral principles.

Thank you for the answer. It seems we have the same view, but we speak about it differently: while an action may be moral or not, being a prerogative only matters in practice if it can be assessed.

The difference is that I don't mind calling even the smallest, least important actions, which have the least chance to be the best thing to do at the moment, prerogatives.

So why do we inseminate animals artificially when there is no ethical imperative to produce life? And if you think life is so valuable by nature, why do we kill them then?

The primary motivation to our livestock farming is certainly the utility, not some sort of ethical imperative. My argument isn't that it's virtuous to farm livestock, my argument is just that it isn't unethical.

You said: > it seems to me that it is less ideal from the perspective of the animal for their entire bloodline to be terminated

I think if you compare the utility that livestock farming provides, with all the externalties and all the suffering it produces is indeed unethical.