Home / C. Nature, biology and evolution / Part DIR
"Farm animals exist for this."
the idea that cattle are "born to become steak" is a purpose assigned by whoever profits from them, not a property of the animal. Farmed animals were shaped by artificial selection to serve production, and that doesn't make them any less able to suffer. Saying they exist for this is describing what we do to them and presenting it as what they are.
Short answer
The purpose "to become steak" was given by whoever breeds and sells the animal, not by the animal. Artificial selection changed farmed animals' bodies, but it didn't take away their capacity to feel. Broiler chickens were bred to grow so fast that they suffer from it, and that isn't their nature: it's what we did to them. Saying they exist for this is calling our use a purpose.
For children
Imagine someone said: "This child was born to work in my factory." Would that mean the child was born for that? No! No one decides what another being's life is for. The chicken and the cow weren't born "for" anything: they were born, they feel and they want to live, like anyone.
"Who decided that the steer was born to become steak: the steer, or whoever sells the meat?"
Como pode aparecer
"Cattle are born to become steak."
"Broiler chickens were made for this."
"It's their purpose."
"Dairy cows exist to give milk."
"What else would a chicken be for?"
"Nature has made animals for the sake of man." (Aristotle)
"Animals are property." (which is A17)
The strongest version
"Cattle are born to become steak. Broiler chickens were made for this. It's their purpose."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Farmed animals were developed by human selection to produce meat, milk or eggs.
- P2Something created for a purpose fulfills that purpose when it is used for it.
- CSo using these animals for production is fulfilling their purpose, not a wrong.
The strong version has a long history. Aristotle stated that plants exist for animals and animals for man. P1 is true: artificial selection transformed farmed animals.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P2, which treats sentient beings as manufactured objects, and in the idea that the purpose assigned by the breeder defines what is good for the bred.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument confuses two senses of "purpose":
Sense What it means Example Assigned function The use someone makes of something A chair is for sitting; a steer is raised for beef One's own good What is good for the being itself, from its point of view A steer is doing well when it isn't suffering, is fed and is alive Objects only have the first sense. Sentient beings have the second, and it doesn't depend on the use we make of them (A20).
- b
Where the argument breaks
1. The purpose is imposed by whoever profits.
The animal didn't choose to be raised for slaughter. The "purpose" describes our use, not a feature of the animal. It's an imposed teleology.
2. Selection didn't remove sentience.
Farmed chickens, pigs and cattle still feel pain, fear and pleasure. Selection changed the body, not the mind.
3. Selection created suffering.
Broiler chickens were bred to grow about four times faster than in 1957, and the European scientific authority identifies bone lesions and mobility problems as consequences (B10). "Made for this" means, in part, "made to suffer from this".
4. The same reasoning was once used against humans.
Aristotle, who said animals exist for man, also argued that some humans were slaves by nature. The idea that a being "exists for" serving another has a history we now reject.
5. Biology has no purposes.
Since Darwin, biology explains organisms' traits through evolution, not purposes. The idea that a species exists "for" something predates modern science.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Aristotle, *Politics*, book I Plants exist for animals and animals for man; also argues that some humans are slaves by nature Full text on Project Gutenberg Zuidhof et al., 2014 2005 chickens grow about four times more than 1957 ones Shows the transformation through selection EFSA, *Welfare of broilers on farm* (2023) Bone lesions and mobility problems among the main welfare consequences Shows the cost of selection to the animal - d
The strongest counter-reply: domestication was a partnership
The most serious version says domestication was a mutually beneficial relationship: the animals gained protection, food and reproductive success, and humans gained food. In that sense, domesticated species "accepted" this role over the course of evolution.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Species don't make agreements.
Each individual is the one who suffers and dies, and none of them agreed to anything (A18).
Today's "benefit" is doubtful.
In intensive farming, the animals' lives aren't a benefit to them (B2).
Reproductive success isn't welfare.
A numerous species can be made up of individuals who suffer.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Begging the question
Equivocation
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Pre-scientific teleology
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Sentient beings treated as objects
Biases
Functional categorization
"Food" animals are granted less mind and less moral status
Psychological essentialism
"Meat animal" seems like an essence, not a category we created
Linked to A8
Teleological bias and agency detection
Seeing purpose in nature: the animal "exists to" serve us
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "a being exists for the purpose we assign it".
If it applied to…Enslaved peopleTap to see
"Born to serve" would be a justification
That was exactly the argument used
If it applied to…DogsTap to see
Guard or fighting breeds would "exist for that"
Dogfighting is a crime
If it applied to…Children from poor familiesTap to see
"Born to work"
No one accepts this
Contradictions
Dogs were also shaped by artificial selection.
Which contradicts the idea that it's their "nature".
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's true that farmed animals have been deeply transformed by human selection, and that domestication is one of the oldest relationships in human history. Understanding that history matters, and there are serious debates about what we owe the species we have shaped.
But
But having been shaped by us isn't having been born for us. If we shaped these animals, we bear even more responsibility for what they feel, not less.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after