How do farmers reconcile themselves to the volumes of animals they send to slaughter over the course of their lifetimes?

[Empanadas]

Hi, this is something I’ve always wondered. However, I was watching that Netflix series about Prince Charles and the Duchy of Cornwall and there was a farmer showing a whole barn of cattle he has obviously reared from birth, but quite blithely saying, “oh they'll all be off next week.”

AIBU to think being a cattle / sheep / chicken farmer takes a certain type of person and to wonder how they deal with their conscience in this depressing business?

Could you stop? You're not making it any better. You are repeatedly comparing human slaves to animals. It's not ok

You can't genuinely be so obtuse that you can't understand that if someone views animal life as as valuable as human life, it is entirely reasonable and accurate to compare them to slaves? You're not coming off well here with this faux shock, it's either that or severe lack of ability to understand the perspective of the other side.

Historically the belief of exceptionalism prevalent in the USA and other countries lead to hierarchy with white Protestant men at the top.
Black people were often not acknowledged as fully human enabling their owners to feel more comfortable about their treatment.

Philosophically if you do not regard yourself as part of a foodchain that you can use to survive and thrive I can see why you could compare slaves and animals.

Humans are just another type of animal and I don't consider us to have any particular moral rights over other animals, a few that was common in the past.

But for me all animals use other parts of the food chain for survival and growth, it is in built, so I don't have an issue with humans doing it.

Being capable of rational thought I think we should aim to minimize suffering where we can, alongside environmental destruction. There aren't any perfect answers or only one way of doing this.

That's a total strawman argument - no one on this thread is saying that owning animals gives you the right to treat them how you like. Apart from anything else it's illegal to torture animals etc. Comparing animals to slaves is offensive because there are differences between animals and humans, in the same way as there are between mammals and fish, and animals and plants. Otherwise I could just as well say that eating plants is exactly the same as eating animals, which I think you would take exception to.

The above was in reply to Kumonkumon

Even if that were the case, farm animals still aren’t treated anything like slaves were? They live their lives without torture or forced labour and then are culled. It’s in absolutely no way comparable.

@Soubriquet

And hunting off course but you need a license

No, you don't. You need a firearms licence to own a gun (and you must have very secure storage for it), but I think I'm right in saying that you can borrow a gun under supervision. That said, no professional stalker would ever take a complete novice out after deer, and you need the landowner's permission and so on.

And you can slaughter your own stock for your own consumption. You do however have to do it cleanly.

What I do think needs to be acknowledged is that humans are capable of a different level of thought, which is why we have been successful as a species.

So while we may "enslave" animals in as much as we own them, sell them and make them work for us without pay. They do not respond to this treatment with the same thought process as a human being would.

This can be obviously seen in the slave rebellions and escapes that occurred during enslavement in the USA and Caribbean.

If cows functioned on the same level you would expect similar actions from them to escape their enslavement. In reality dairy cows line up in readiness for their trip to the milking parlor.

There has never been an organized farm animal uprising because such animals are not capable of that level of cognitive thought.

We are in danger falsely giving farm animals humans thoughts and feelings if we give them straight equivalence to enslaved humans.

In other parts of the animal world animals husband other animals for their own benefit, this is not a human only behavior.

Human exceptionalism (relative to other species on the planet) is not concomitant to “ownership” of other species. It has unfortunately become this way because humans, since the beginning of time, have deemed it to be the “natural order of things” (either because of religion or just blind arrogance). “Ownership” refers to property or inanimate objects. How can you ever “own” a life?

@Empanadas

Human exceptionalism (relative to other species on the planet) is not concomitant to “ownership” of other species. It has unfortunately become this way because humans, since the beginning of time, have deemed it to be the “natural order of things” (either because of religion or just blind arrogance). “Ownership” refers to property or inanimate objects. How can you ever “own” a life?

An animal's life? Quite easily as it turns out. That's why I have ownership papers for my cat, why I had ownership papers for my horse, why I could keep a budgie in a cage, why people can raise mice to feed their snake. . . you may not like ownership of animals, or think that this is the way it ought to be, but it is the way it is.

Wantin' ain't the same as gettin'. . .

@KeepingTrack

I think all the knicker twisting about animals is a very privilege attitude. There is a reason why people are eating more and more meat as they move from really poor countries to not as poor ones.

Meat is making a huge difference to their quality of life, the quality of their diet etc… that’s an unfortunate fact that eating meat helps people be healthier. (Not even going into the whole dairy issue).
But more to the point, a vegan diet in industrialised countries means a reliance on products who are coming from far away. Something people in poorer countries just can’t afford to do.
See for example issues with iron deficiencies in those countries because they don’t have access the same amount of meat we do. Or the ‘right’ vegetarian options that would bridge that gap.

What a laughably ignorant post. You can go your whole life without consuming meat and fish, be perfectly healthy and have a quality diet and a quality life as a result. Entire generations in the world today have existed like this. Animals reared and consumed by humans are also given many supplements. Poor people are not poor as a result of their diet. There is a reason why certain countries have the highest cancer rates in the world.

People just have different views. I am pro eating meat and have no problems with farmers. Others differ. I can understand both sides just as I can on debates such as abortion and should pregnant women be banned from drinking.

"There has never been an organized farm animal uprising because such animals are not capable of that level of cognitive thought."

Because they dont have the cognitive capacity to stand up to us does not mean that we should have the right to do what we want to non-human animals. Yes we are capable of higher order cognitive thought. This is precisely why we should question ourselves.

(animals have also been found to have forms of behaviour that would result from our definitions of cognition, but that is another topic)

When you bought your cat or horse as pets, what you “bought” was the responsibility for them. This is not the same as ownership.

People used to think thei could own other people. In some cases, they still do. It doesn’t matter if they have “paperwork” It’s obvious nobody’s life can be purchased or belong to someone else.

As humans we have taken over the planet and destroyed natural habitats for other species. As such, animals (for the most part) cannot roam free.

Buying responsibility for a pet is not buying their life - or their right to exist. You can have as many pieces of paper as you want . You can never buy the life of another being, human or otherwise.

Ownership” refers to property or inanimate objects. How can you ever “own” a life?

Ownership is human construct in totality.

It is perfectly possible for one group of humans to believe that property can be owned and another to believe that this is an intellectual impossibility.
Landownership in the USA during the time of western settlement is a clear example of this.
Two human grouping with completely opposing views about whether land could be owned by individuals.

Likewise it equally possible to believe animals can be owned. In some ways it is easier to understand owning an animal whose life you can observe from start to end than a landscape.

Presumably, if you think you “own” your horses fundamental right to existence, you think you should be able to shoot it today, without impunity?

Well, it is buying their life - in that I can sell them on, I can have them put down, I can keep them inside, I can move them anywhere I wish, I can feed them what I like, I can do what I like with them, within the bounds of the law, which of course, does not allow me to use them in a manner that is seen as cruel.

So, given that I can also have them put down, I have indeed bought their right to exist.

I refer you back to the example of the person who breeds mice for the purpose of feeding them to her snake. She is indeed in sole charge of their existence, from conception to consumption.

If you decide I shouldn't be allowed to own my cat, and you decide to challenge my right of ownership in court, I can assure you that the court will find that I do indeed 'own' my cat, that my cat is my property, to do with as I wish, within the bounds of current applicable law.

People just have different views... ...I can understand both sides just as I can on debates such as abortion and should pregnant women be banned from drinking.

Who are you and what have you done with @Xenia?

I believe I own my dog and currently the law supports that view.
I don't think that ownership of anything comes without responsibility though sentient or not.

At many times in history I could have owned a human being or been owned by one.
That is just a historical fact.
Regardless of the current ethical thinking around this.

At other times and places I could have lived in an area which had the practice of

Cannibalism or the ritual eating of human body parts for health reasons.

It is perfectly obvious to me that all animals including humans can be owned which is a different debate to whether they should be. They can also be put to work or consumed. The ethics around all of these issues are historically and culturally variable.

Different individuals make different decisions within different societal norms at any point in time. I would question the rather fundamentalist approach of the existence of one obvious truth.

mbos - you are only considering the issue in the context of human laws and frameworks. Ethics or individual moral perspectives are something very different and run much deeper.

However, the context of human laws and frameworks, reflect and circumscribe the current reality within which we operate.

It's the difference between actuality and aspirationality - well, your aspirations, based on your ethics and moral perspectives - which are not the current actuality as described and enforced within our pertinent laws.

mbosnz - but if you happened to live in a different country, there would be a different legal framework and a different set of “paperwork” you may or may not acquire as a result.

For instance, in some places to this day, a husband believes he has “ownership” of his wife and daughters. He would argue this has to be so as it is legal in that society. He would argue he has the paperwork in the form of a marriage certificate - that’s all you need to know - and would corroborate this belief system with certain passages from religious texts, perhaps. The wife has no passport of her own, etc and might not be able to leave the house without written consent from the husband. Now you and I know that it is not possible to own a woman or child in this way, despite what anyone might say. Nevertheless, it doesn’t stop some people believing it is so in the context of the societal construct they adhere to.

When you buy an animal, the very concept of money changing hands is a human construct. No more. What you are buying is guardianship (or it should be). The fact that, if you purposely kill that animal before it’s time, you may be prosecuted, should be enough for you to understand that you have not bought the right to it’s life.

In the U.K. we put a price in certain animals that we deem to be food. In other counties, that same animal may be deemed sacred, or unclean or whatever. It’s always a human construct, basically. You can look at things from a purely human perspective, I suppose. That’s why mass slaughter of certain animals only is legalised in the way it is. Or you can decide that sentient life itself is never (or should never) something that can be owned or purchased. It’s a matter of personal morality, I guess.

If you kill that animal purposefully, but humanely, before what someone else might deem its time, then you are extremely unlikely to be successfully prosecuted. If a farmer sees a dog they do not even own, worrying their livestock, they can shoot it, and not be prosecuted.

I'm afraid I can't think of a single country where ownership of an animal that is not a human is deemed illegal. Some have more stringent requirements of care and responsibility attached to that ownership than others.

you can decide that sentient life itself is never (or should never) something that can be owned or purchased. It’s a matter of personal morality, I guess.

Yes, absolutely right. It's a matter of personal morality, rather than a reflection of current reality. So when you say 'an animal cannot be owned or purchased', that is factually incorrect. When you say 'I think it should not be legal for an animal to be owned or purchased', that is correct, for that is your opinion, that you have every right to hold and express - it simply does not reflect the current reality.

I’m not talking about legal ownership though. I’m talking about the right to take a healthy animal’s life.

It is legal in this society to slaughter healthy cows, pigs and sheep for food. Some (many) would interpret this legality as proof that such slaughter is ethical. Others would not.

Obviously, if an animal is attacking you or other people or different animals that’s another issue entirely and you have to act accordingly.

Most people would argue it is unethical to slaughter or put down a healthy cat, dog or horse. Unlike in the case if animals deemed “livestock,” the legal system supports this. We don’t think of these animals as food in our society, although in other societies people do eat dogs and horse meat. It just depends where you’re coming from. Personally, I don’t believe humans have the right to take the lives of any of these animals, but I would say that as a vegan. But it is strange logic, how some animals are deemed by humans to be livestock and others pets and everybody just accepts this as if it’s totally inevitable.

Completely agree OP.

[quote Kumonkumon]@GrumpyMiddleAgedWoman sorry if you felt patronised...In terms of venison, actually i agree with you, eating game that has been hunted is better than eating factory farmed chickens.[/quote]
Apology unexpected but appreciated. Thank you.