That's essentially what we do with cows. Do you see the hypocrisy? We don't inflict this on humans so why do it to other creatures which can know terror and pain just as we do?
Because empathy being applied to other species is an evolutionary bug, not a feature. Bug probably triggered by the luxurious abundance and the accompanying decadence acting on brains a bit too disconnected from the reality of the animal kingdom.
And if you want intellectual justifications: because we're the apex predators and we do what we want when we want; that includes raising and eating beasts that are of no other value to us. The other carnivorous animals wouldn't act in any other way, in our position.
Sometimes there isn't anything one can do to sugarcoat something: this is stupid. For one thing, even if we were to take your bald assertion that empathy is somehow an evolutionary bug at face value, though you've provided no evidence for this or even really any suggestion of what it could mean, it doesn't follow that lacking it is the optimal behavior relative to "evolutionary goals" (which are nothing) or whatever unstated goals you presume we all share.
Like on of the most wonderful things about human beings is that we can reflect upon our behavior, form moral and aesthetic opinions about how we'd like the future to be, and make appropriate adjustments to our behavior to achieve those ends.
In any case, the material circumstances that produced us have absolutely no meaning at all. The essence of the evolutionary explanation is that life really is random, given that, we may just as freely reject evolutionary understandings of what we want from the world as we may accept them. Surely they are of practical value, in the sense that if we want to optimally act on the world we have to understand it, but they impose no necessary moral or aesthetic demands upon us. It is deeply confused to believe that the mere evolutionary circumstances that produced you ought to constrain how you want the future to look.
"Species" is, in and of itself, a man made construct. To define your own morals by an arbitrary distinction isn't just simplistic, it's downright dangerous.
It wasn't long ago that certain people were considered "subhuman", and therefore open to all kinds of abuse. Did you learn nothing from that?
And of course, the same is true for your ridiculous "might makes right" argument. Have you considered making other horribly uneducated arguments, like "it's natural"? Maybe add some "we've always done it that way".
Most of the human suffering in this concept comes from being able to think, compare and ideas about the good life and then those thoughts create the suffering. The actual physical suffering is limited, although present.
Cows can‘t do that and don‘t have the point of reference to compare. I doubt even humans could unless they are raised to be taught all the cultural norms and what‘s good and bad.
> Cows can‘t do that and don‘t have the point of reference to compare. I doubt even humans could unless they are raised to be taught all the cultural norms and what‘s good and bad.
By that logic, would it be ethical to eat humans who do not have a point of reference to compare and have not been taught cultural norms and what's good and bad?
I was not talking about eating, I was talking about living conditions.
Furthermore (again regarding living conditions): Still no, because those humans likely have loved ones or family and additionally no because of what this would do to the other humans who housed them so.
I wouldn't eat beef if it was raised in those conditions but it doesn't reflect the reality of most British beef rearing operations. Most British beef is fed predominantly a forage based diet, outside in pasture except during the winter months and perhaps during the period before slaughter where they are flattened up.
