Claim: I use the whole animal so it's ok


Nothing of the animal goes to waste, which tips the scale. The value that we get out of animal agriculture is greater than that of the animal itself not dying.

Problems With This Argument

1. We don't apply this logic anywhere else

We don't say that somehow if you part out an entire car, that somehow now makes it more ethical to steal a car because you get more money out of it. Nor is the economic argument sensical, e.g. "Well, I stole a car with low resale value and really high parts value so it's all good". When victims are in the picture that end up losing everything, we don't give moral immunity to the perpetrators because they got a little more juice for the squeeze.

2. This isn't even logical applied to other animal cruelty scenarios

Carnists would morally disagree with Yulin dog festival, but it doesn't offer much consolation to those opposed to the barbecuing of dogs that the whole dog is eaten. Likewise, is it really the problem with throwing baby chicks into shredders that you don't get useful chickmeal out the other side? Most people would say in those scenarios that maximizing profits from the economics doesn't make it more ethical to do what we do to animals.

Markdown - (copy 📋)
Rich Text
[Claim: I use the whole animal so it's ok](