forgrin wrote:Veganism is strange tbh. There's an inherent contradiction in it because we've created many species for domestic purposes that wouldn't survive in the wild/without human assistance, so if the vegans really got what they wanted then they'd essentially be killing millions of millions of innocent animals and ending several species.
this demented logic has also been employed by judges:
http://alaw.org.uk/articles/journalspring05ciwfbr.pdf
the issue, as claimed by the party bringing the action: broiler chickens have been selectively bred to fatten and thus reach slaughter weight as quickly as possible (read my story above - it's constructed well). they indeed fatten so quickly that for broilers used for breeding purposes, the industry restricts their feed, keeping them "chronically hungry" so as to mitigate against health problems caused by their massive bulk so that they can survive long enough to reach sexual maturity.
the high court said
It was not enough for the claimant to argue that the feed restrictions resulted in
breeder broilers being left “chronically hungry”, “very hungry” or that, from time to
time, they exhibited distress. Intensive farming in connection with chickens was not of
itself unlawful, and the need to achieve a balance in connection with the health of
broiler breeders was an attendant aspect of intensive farming systems. The period of
feed restrictions was limited and directed to a particular need, and the fact that
chickens on restricted feeding regimes were able to gain weight and that their
essential bodily functions were not compromised was a significant factor in
counteracting the suggestion that broiler breeders were being kept sufficiently hungry
to compromise their wellbeing.
the court of appeal (the claimant lost and appealed) said
In a seemingly reluctant concurrence, Sedley LJ accepted that “the behavioural
evidence show[ed] that breeders [were] distressed by the low level of feeding to
which they [were] confined for their first 20 weeks, and that this on its face [was]
inimical to their wellbeing”. However, the selection of genotypes was “beyond the
reach of the measures at issue” in the appeal.
meaning whilst the animals were caused to suffer - the standard industry practice necessitated the kind of suffering caused, and was therefore necessary.
this is quite analogous to your logic - the industry has engineered the entire thing, and it then becomes 'necessary' (in order to facilitate industry practice) to employ such a feeding regime.
what you said was "veganism doesn't make sense because commodity animals are only bred to be exploited and killed, so if they weren't being exploited and killed they wouldn't even live at all", which firstly is akin to saying "if I breed X in order to exploit and kill X, it's ok because if i wasn't killing and exploiting X, X wouldn't live in the first place." I leave it to your good judgement to consider how this is problematic.
secondly, your logic implies that their having life is itself such a great benefit that it outweighs the horrific abuses they suffer. this logic leads to a conclusion you will not be comfortable with: if in fact for animals living is a benefit worth moral consideration, you act immorally in depriving them of life for frivolous reasons; so we can reduce the discussion between you and I to the following question: notwithstanding their welfare leading up to slaughter, is it morally justifiable to kill in order to provide you a frivolous benefit like food produce you have zero need for?