"They had a good life and a quick death."

Como pode aparecer

The strongest version

Strongest version (steelman):

1. P1What matters to an animal is the quality of its life and the absence of suffering.
2. P2An animal raised with good welfare and slaughtered without pain had a life worth living and a death without suffering.
3. P3In the wild, many animals die of hunger, disease or predation, with great suffering.
4. CSo raising and slaughtering with good welfare does not harm the animal, and may even be better for it.

P3 is true: life in the wild involves a great deal of suffering (see Beyond veganism). The problem lies in P1, which leaves out the loss of life, and in P2, which describes a rare ideal.

The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P1 (A16) and P2 (B1 and B2). The comparison in P3 is a false dichotomy: the alternative to the slaughterhouse isn't the wild, it's not breeding animals to kill them.

Full answer

1. a

   Reconstruction and diagnosis

   The argument combines two promises and a comparison:

   Part	What it claims	What happens
   Good life	The animals lived well	About three quarters of farmed animals live in intensive systems (B2)
   Quick death	They died without noticing	Stunning fails, and some permitted methods cause pain (B1)
   Comparison	Better than nature	The real alternative is not breeding them, not releasing them into the wild

2. b

   Where the argument breaks

   1. A good life increases the loss.

   If the animal's life was good, death takes something valuable from it. The promise of a good life is an argument against killing, not for it (A16).

   2. The animals are killed young.

   In commercial production, broiler chickens are slaughtered at a few weeks old and pigs at about five months, long before the natural end of their lives.

   3. The two promises are rarely kept together.

   Most animals come from intensive farming, and even on the best farms stunning can fail (B1, B2).

   4. The comparison with nature is a false dichotomy.

   Farmed animals wouldn't be released into the wild: they simply wouldn't be brought into existence to die (B6). Wild animal suffering is real, but it isn't the alternative to slaughter.

   5. No one applies the sentence to humans or dogs.

   A happy life has never been a justification for cutting it short.

3. c

   Data and sources

   Source	What it says	Note
   Our World in Data, *How many animals are factory-farmed?*	About 74% of the world's farmed land animals live in intensive systems	Shows that the "good life" is the exception
   Natural life expectancy and age at slaughter	Broiler chickens at a few weeks old; pigs at about five months	Table from Swissveg, a Swiss vegan organization: chickens 5 to 6 weeks, pigs 5 months
   EFSA, *Welfare of pigs at slaughter* (2020)	Permitted methods can cause pain, fear and distress before unconsciousness	Also used in B1

4. d

   The strongest counter-reply: a net positive

   The most serious version says that, for animals who would not otherwise have existed, a good life followed by a painless death is a net positive: they gain a life worth living. It would be better for them to exist this way than not to exist.

5. e

   Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion

   Bringing someone into existence gives no right to kill them.

   Parents who give life to a child don't gain the right to take it (B6).

   A net positive doesn't require an early death.

   If the animal's life is good, the balance would be even greater if it lived longer. Death doesn't improve the sum; it only cuts it short.

   The counter-reply only applies to the exception.

   For most animals, life is not good, and the balance, even by this criterion, is negative.

Reasoning errors

Biases

Extrapolations

The principle being tested is: "a good life followed by a quick death makes death acceptable".

Contradictions

What the argument gets right

Connections

References