It's not like the animal is going to live forever if you don't kill it. In nature animals are often eaten alive by predators, die from disease, starvation and get horribly injured in competition for mates.
A free range animal that's being humanely put down by a farmer has a much more pleasant life.
If you go down this rabbit hole deep enough you can begin to question whether life itself should exist.
What we do know for sure is that the animal would not have lived the same life if it weren't captive.
>A free range animal that's being humanely put down by a farmer has a much more pleasant life.
I don't think we can objectively say this. We have no idea what these animals want. Our humanity for these animals lives is nothing short of projection, purely because we have no idea what they want.
Animals like chickens lack self awareness and the ability for future planning. They operate on instinct. We can prove this. Thus, they also don't know what they want--outside of the immediate satisfaction of an instinctual urge.
They do feel pain and hunger however. In the wild, these animals suffer more pain and hunger. In free range "captivity" they suffer less. It's as simple as that.
I swear most of the arguments against proper free range farming are grounded in either:
a) A fallacious appeal to nature, ie. the false presumption that just because something is "natural" it is automatically better
or
b) Projection of human awareness and emotional intelligence onto other species
Are factory farms more cruel to animals than proper free range farming? Yes. Is nature more cruel to animals than proper free range farming? Yes.
> Stop ascribing human-like emotions and awareness to other species.
Well, take a monkey, orca, elephant, dolphin, etc. and it would be hard not to. Sure, many farm animals fall below that level, but they're not bugs either. Many mammals have some basic language, care for their young, give distress calls, migrate, find shelter, etc. which seems to indicate at least some level of future planning whether innate or not. And many intelligent mammals have been seen grieving the dead or rescuing animals from danger.
> In free range "captivity" they suffer less. It's as simple as that.
Yet philosophy courses still exist... Because it's not as simple as that. For some, life is more than just the reduction of suffering. And there are a million other ways to answer "why we exist" or "how we should live".
For animals, we don't know. I think it's absurd to say we're giving them a better/easier/happier life on a farm or out in the wild. We don't know.
Taking zoos as an example though (which is a similar form of captivity, except they don't kill their animals), most people don't think it's a better life, except in the case where the animal is so weak, sick or unable to care for itself that it couldn't hunt in the wild.
Tons of prey animals are reintroduced to the wild, without concern that they might be eaten (some will), but in the hopes that many will survive and reproduce.
So, I guess if your goal is to ensure that the most number of animals lead a somewhat confined life away from predators until they're done growing, farms make sense. If your goal is to ensure that animals get to experience life in their native habitats including the ability to mate and get eaten, then farms aren't so good.
UK has relatively high livestock and animal welfare basic regulation, and in addition it has a certification scheme (that works out about 25% more expensive), run by the "Royal Society for Protection of Cruelty towards Animals". They base their standards as much as possible on academic measurements of stress and natural behaviors. One thing to note is that animals tend to get ill the more 'unhappy' their existence is - and this is argued as one of the reasons there is no need to chlorinate chickens from UK and very little food poisoning risk from fresh produce.
Anyway, the RSPCA will actually certify chickens that are not able to 'free range' (these days it means ability to go outside occasionally) Their advice is it doesn't seem to be of great importance to chickens, unlike stocking density, temperature and conditions inside the barn, and even the introduction of 'toys' like beachballs which some are observed to play with. RSPCA workers are commonly regarded as genuine and professionally experienced their charge of, preventing cruelty towards animals.
How? Just because they demonstrate instinctual behaviour in some circumstances doesn't mean they lack self awareness or the ability for future planning. Humans also demonstrate instinctual behaviour.
Your argument would be valid if they were humans. They are not. I fail to understand why they should be treated as such.
And if we consider animals equal to humans, do we send them to jail if they behave badly? Do we prevent them from being murdered by other animals? Isn't it utterly hypocritical to let animals die by starvation in the wild while preventing farming? What is even the natural habitat of farmed animals like a cow?
What happens to a dog that bites a human? In many countries they get euthanized.
Cows as we know them wouldn't exist without farming (for leather, meat, milk). As meat eating reduction is something that will never happen over night, they simply are going to become protected, nearly extinct species that live in few sanctuaries (charity).
Without artifical insemination numbers are very manageable. Remaining, existing population would be eaten till numbers are low enough.
A free range animal that's being humanely put down by a farmer has a much more pleasant life.
If you go down this rabbit hole deep enough you can begin to question whether life itself should exist.