>When you hear people throwing around terms like "humanely slaughtered beef", you know that we've hit a point of exceptional self deception as a society.

I disagree; I think there are in fact humane meat processors, like the one shown in this video: https://vimeo.com/22077752

In relative terms, there are more and less humane ways to slaughter. Obviously, causing less suffering is better than causing more suffering. So if they called it "more humanely slaughtered beef", I'd have less of an objection.

But to call the unnecessary destruction of lives for the sake of profit "humane" is an insult to humanity. Then again, perhaps it is a well-deserved one.

I disagree. Not to get too pedantic here, but since we're discussing the meaning of words, the dictionary definition of humane is relevant: "characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed." There is no reason that the "unnecessary destruction of lives for the sake of profit" could not be done in a way that is accurately described by that definition. In fact, I believe the video I linked is a perfect example of someone behaving in that way.

There's no such thing as humane killing. If you kill something, it's not humane.

I suppose you've never had to end something's life to cease its suffering?

While that is a valid objection to nilved's overly general statement, it is irrelevant to the question at hand. This isn't a case of choosing the lesser of two evils. It's a case of killing an animal so you can sell his or her body.