Theoretically, any animal that is destined for the slaughter could live a better life then it would if it was living in the world. Cattle, just to focus on one animal, would live free-range and munch on all the grass they want to. The gazing cattle would never have to worry about finding food again. They would even be given healthcare, as farmers would take care of it since people wouldn't want to buy sick cattle (irrational fears of mad cow disease among the consumers). Finally, the cow's death would be humane and painless.
I will state that this is far from the current reality. However, that could change if we, the consumers, demanded our beef to be free-range. Businesses would adapt to the change in demand. Plus, I also found free-range beef to taste better then factory farm beef.
I agree with most of this post, but I think it neglects two critical points. Firstly, no matter how pleasant a life and humane a death farmers might choose to give to cattle, the fact remains that they are cutting the cattle's lives short. That is in and of itself unethical. In order for the practice to be fully ethical, they would have to wait until the cattle dies natural deaths (as of old age) before preparing and consuming their meat - an unlikely objective, as it risks producing diseased meat, and because many people would not be willing to purchase or consume the tough, aged meat of cattle who died natural deaths. Secondly, regardless of whether the prior ideal could exist as an industry, it does not exist now. As such, consuming beef (and other types of meat, with the possible exception of venison due to the current horrific overpopulation of deer) is and will almost certainly remain unethical.
ReplyDeleteP.S. I also posted this on my blog if you'd rather read it there.