I think that’s because the American urban centric view looks at where the meat comes from in the US and it’s not equivalent to hunting on a farm. It comes from factory farms that are pretty sickening when you see videos and pictures. Sure maybe some folks in rural areas or hunters are similar to what you described but 95% is factory farms in US supermarkets.

Also part of the point is that in this culture it’s not for survival. If you need it to survive that’s a different story and not what most people dislike. However US consumers have a choice, so why not make the best of it. Choose meat from sustainable farms or just avoid it.

>I also find it a frustrating American-centric/urban-centric point of view that 'killing animals is bad'

This isn't really even an American centric view. It might be a silicon valley centric view or Upper class suburbs of America centric view. But the fact of the matter in most of America, the working class areas, the rural areas, etc. There are absolutely no moral qualms about hunting, or killing animals or eating meat.

I grew up in an area with "traditional" slaughter techniques. Basically a hog is tied down and its throat is slit, while alive, the animal's heart pumps the blood out into a bucket. This ensures the blood doesn't remain in the meat, which makes it taste gamey. The screaming and thrashing of the pig will haunt you for days but the meat definitely tastes better.

Anyways, I dislike the utilitarian/primitist argument because you can justify any number of cruelties with an appeal to nature. Cats play with their food all the time so why can't we torture animals for fun?

Humans should ponder the morality of killing animals because we have the will and ability to do so.

We certainly are lucky to live in a society of plenty where we can make the moral decision on how or what we eat. I don't have any negative thoughts against people who completely opt out of eating meat for that reason.

But just to comment on your first point, we would never let an animal suffer like that when we grew up. A quick shot to the temple to switch it off immediately, and then cut and hang the meat to bleed out worked just as well for us.

Don't get me wrong, we were always taught to minimise any suffering and to give our livestock the best/healthiest/least stressful lives possible, and to treat them with dignity when you needed them for food.

My first point is that this type of cruelty is just a basic part of life and survival for the people who practice it. You would condemn it as cruel just as some would condemn you for killing an animal with a gun. I'm just saying it's a rather arbitrary line to draw. How much cruelty is too much and for what purpose? Why would you draw a neat line around your actions and call it moral, then say that anything outside that line is overly cruel?

Note that in my story I did eat the meat - I may have understated how delicious it tasted. Freshly butchered pork made this way is unlike anything I've had in North America. Is killing for sustenance more moral than killing for sport, or for taste?

I don't pass judgement on people who hunt or slaughter animals this way, but I don't buy the idea that killing animals is simply a part of life and above moral consideration - or for that matter GP's argument, that it's perfectly moral to kill animals for food because it's as nature intended.