Home / C. Nature, biology and evolution / Part DIR
"It's the circle of life."
"circle of life" is a euphemism. Breeding, confining and slaughtering billions of animals a year is an industry, not a natural cycle. That everyone dies someday doesn't make it acceptable to kill someone before their time: all humans die too, and that has never justified killing anyone.
Short answer
That everyone dies someday doesn't make it acceptable to kill someone before their time: all humans die too, and that has never justified killing anyone. And animal farming isn't a natural cycle: animals are artificially inseminated, raised in sheds, bred to grow fast and slaughtered young, by the billions every year. Calling that the circle of life is giving a pretty name to an industry.
For children
All living things are born, grow and one day die. That's the circle of life. But it doesn't mean someone can decide when another will die. Farm animals don't die because they got old: they're raised to die while they're still young. That isn't nature's cycle; it's a choice people make.
"If we're all going to die someday, does killing a person stop being wrong?"
Como pode aparecer
"It's the circle of life."
"It's the cycle of life."
"Everything dies someday."
"It's part of life."
"The Lion King already explained this."
"Life feeds on life."
"It's natural to eat meat." (which is C1)
The strongest version
"It's the circle of life. Everything dies someday; it's part of life."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1In nature, the life of some depends on the death of others, in a cycle of birth, death and renewal.
- P2Eating animals is taking part in that cycle.
- P3What is part of the natural cycle of life is not morally wrong.
- CSo eating animals is not wrong.
The strong version has an almost spiritual appeal: there is something true in the idea that life and death are linked. The problem lies in P2, which describes animal farming as if it were nature, and in P3, which is an appeal to nature.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P2 and P3.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument describes animal farming in the language of nature:
The natural cycle Animal farming Spontaneous births Artificial insemination and hatcheries Death from age, disease or predation Scheduled slaughter, while still young Balance between populations Billions of animals bred to meet demand Animals adapted to their environment Animals bred to produce, with the health problems that follow (B10) - b
Where the argument breaks
1. The inevitability of death doesn't justify killing.
We all die, and killing someone is still one of the worst harms. What matters isn't whether death happens, but when, and by whose decision (A16).
2. Animal farming isn't natural.
Farmed animals were shaped by artificial selection, are born by insemination, live in built environments and die on an industrial schedule. In 2021, about 73.8 billion chickens were slaughtered worldwide. None of this exists in nature.
3. It's a euphemism.
Words like "cycle", "processing" and "harvest" soften the description of what happens. The argument works less as a reason and more as verbal anesthesia.
4. It's an appeal to nature.
Even if animal farming were natural, that wouldn't make it right (C1).
5. In the natural cycle, death doesn't have to be caused by us.
Today we can live well without taking part in that "cycle" as predators.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Our World in Data, animals slaughtered About 73.8 billion chickens slaughtered in 2021 Shows the industrial scale of the "cycle" Zuidhof et al., 2014 2005 broiler chickens grow about four times more than 1957 ones Shows how much farmed animals have been modified - d
The strongest counter-reply: taking part in nature with respect
The most serious version comes from traditions that see hunting and husbandry as respectful relationships with nature, in which the animal is thanked and nothing is wasted. The problem would be the industry, not taking part in the cycle.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
It isn't what people buy.
Supermarket meat comes from industry, not from a ritual relationship with nature (B2).
Respect doesn't undo the harm.
Thanking the animal doesn't change what happens to it.
For those with an alternative, taking part is a choice.
And choices can be morally assessed.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Persuasive definition
Non sequitur
Appeal to nature
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Wrong description of animal farming
Biases
Meat paradox
The idea of a cycle eases the tension between liking animals and eating them
Teleological bias and agency detection
The "circle of life" seems to have a plan that justifies each death
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "since everyone dies, causing death is part of the cycle".
If it applied to…HumansTap to see
Killing a person would be part of the circle of life
No one accepts this
If it applied to…PetsTap to see
Killing a healthy dog would just be part of the cycle
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Any violenceTap to see
It would be natural, because death is natural
The principle dissolves all of ethics
Contradictions
Even knowing death is inevitable.
Medicine, houses and supermarkets take human life far from the natural cycle.
What the argument gets right
What is true
There's something true and even beautiful in the idea of a cycle: life depends on other lives, death is part of existence, and accepting one's own mortality is a sign of maturity. Many traditions express this with depth.
But
But accepting that death exists isn't accepting causing unnecessary deaths. Nature's cycle doesn't need slaughterhouses, and the wisdom of accepting death doesn't extend to deciding the deaths of others.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after
Go deeper in Questão de Ética
Chapters from the open-access collection A Journey Through Animal Ethics that discuss this argument in more detail:
- If Speciesism Is Natural, Is Speciesism Justified? Vol. I, ch. 8