When is killing animals right?

[SphericalCrusher]

I don't have strong opinions on this, but my wife does. As long as it's being eaten and not wasted, it's legit to kill. Or if it's trying to end your life... that part is okay too.

 

[Braydon]

I can't see how eating an animal justifies having killed it. People will say, it's okay if you use it afterward. You didn't have to kill it you you could have eaten something else. But, I'm sure the animal will take great solace in knowing it's body wasn't buried, but chopped up into pieces, fried, roasted, seared, and then chopped into littler pieces, and eaten, wouldn't you? That's not making up for killing it, that's like some horrible defacing ritual some tribe somewhere would do to it's dead enemies corpses.



@ SphericalCrusher
That's great... Why exactly do you think anyone wants to hear you announce whatever your wife thinks as if it's a fact because it came out of her mouth?

 

[SphericalCrusher]

I can't see how eating an animal justifies having killed it. People will say, it's okay if you use it afterward. You didn't have to kill it you you could have eaten something else. But, I'm sure the animal will take great solace in knowing it's body wasn't buried, but chopped up into pieces, fried, roasted, seared, and then chopped into littler pieces, and eaten, wouldn't you? That's not making up for killing it, that's like some horrible defacing ritual some tribe somewhere would do to it's dead enemies corpses.



@ SphericalCrusher
That's great... Why exactly do you think anyone wants to hear you announce whatever your wife thinks as if it's a fact because it came out of her mouth?

Chill out. No one said anything about my wife stating facts... I just said my wife had strong opinions about animals. And I just announced my opinion on the matter. Edit: The comment I made came from me, not from her. I just stated that me personally don't really care, but she does. She's no animal activist though.

 

[chaojimbo]

EDIT:I just read the thread and see a lot of what I said here has already been stated.

"It's not food, it's violence."

We've all heard something similar. That's the newest slogan of Direct Action Everywhere for animal advocacy.

I already see many of the points I usually stand for have already been presented and backed up with various forms of evidence. I doubt that my input would add much more to the topic at hand. However, I do love this topic so I will still state my opinion and mention some individuals for those who are interested.

I am an activist for the animal rights movement. My reasoning for so is because my inherent moral compass seems to make me feel...wrong for consuming animals. I noticed this ever since I was a kid. As I grew up, I still got the biggest and beefiest burger from Carls Jr./Harveys multiple times a week because I liked the taste, but I failed to think harder about what I really believed in. I was just a naive child in my opinion. By the time I hit the eighth grade, I started to think very hard about why it kept feeling more and more wrong to continue eating meat. No event brought this up, it was just something that came on my mind. On my 16th birthday, I went straight from an average American diet to a full on vegan diet, and I have kept with it since. (A little more than two and a half years by now.) Personally, I do not regret giving up meat and I feel so much more comfortable with the idea that I am not giving money to companies with bad business practices and with horrible ethical treatment to the animals they are harvesting (though of course, these moral ethics are relative to my opinion). I am not religious; I chose this lifestyle because it is what feels right to me. However, veganism is the beginning. A common theme among the animal rights activists is that veganism is not the solution. It is just the start for animal advocacy. A friend of mine by the name of Hugo Dominguez is a rising activist and is becoming very well known in the movement. Here's a status he posted on Facebook:

Veganism is the moral baseline. It is literally the very least we can do for animals. It's not the end solution, it's merely the beginning towards eradicating this oppressive system. It's a huge accomplishment becoming vegan in an overly speciesist planet. But there has to come a time when we have to stop patting ourselves on the back and start asking, "what more can we do for animals?" Animals need more from us than just buying a block of tofu. They need our voice. Let's be that voice!

His profile: https://www.facebook.com/hugodominguez19?fref=ts

Anyway, the idea of thinking about "when is it okay to kill animals" is relative to opinion. I see it as morally wrong. Not everyone is going to think the same and I understand this. The surest way to turn someone away from a vegan diet is to call someone who does not follow the lifestyle "a murderer." Though I want everyone to make the change, I do not think that the world will ever stop eating meat. I see this approach as realistic, though, however, I do think the chance of the ideology becoming accepted is not impossible!

Veganism is growing quickly though and the animal rights movement is becoming more well known and accepted. This makes me happy.

Nutritionally, non-animal diets are not an issue with recent studies. I assume this was already posted somewhere in the thread.

I think the main issue here is that everyone has different morals (nature vs nurture perhaps?). This is why the topic is seen so differently.

I guess to end my post, I just see it all as loving one another. We respect our worldly animals and other human beings (which are animals too).

I hope I was able to shine some positive light on the subject. Thank you for reading.

This video is absolutely fallacious, but might humor some of you here:

 

[Dastardly Ridleylash]

I've changed my mind about hunting to control population. It's just another stupid excuse to let America stay as violent and disgusting as it already is.

Thing is that population control is actually kind of vital; if we let a single animal get out of control with the maximum population, it ends up damaging everything else (especially herbivores, since they end up decimating plant supply, which kills them, which kills the predators), as well.

Without population control, ecosystems could be destroyed and animal populations decimated. Population control is not the same thing as sport hunting (or, as many people tend to treat it, killing animals to take selfies with their corpses); one is important to keep an ecosystem stable, the other is just to show off another corpse for the collection.

 

[HvEVIL]

one is important to keep an ecosystem stable, the other is just to show off another corpse for the collection.

Well the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive

 

[Fatal Amity]

There are two sound sides to this question.
1) Killing animals is never right. Humans can survive without the slaughter of animals, as is proven daily by vegetarians and vegans who are just as healthy as...carnivores. Killing is wrong at this stage in mankind existence; we can exist and thrive as perfectly as we currently do, without the killing of animals (with some minor losses such as animal testing which is a completely separate issue).

2) Killing animals is right, regardless of the purpose behind the slaughter. This viewpoint is supported at a base by "survival of the fittest". The main ideology is further supported by the facts that we can/do use the animals for numerous practices that prove beneficial to our continued survival and/or personal comfort/desire. Whether it is to hunt for enjoyment, kill to prove dominance or attract a mate (I don't judge, you do you), or slaughter for what society would deem as more "practical" purposes such as clothing, food, etc, this argument simply believes that as the dominant species, we can kill as we please.

The middle ground that is being debated is simply individuals attempting to justify a warped version of these two arguments to the other side, in a vain attempt to resolve the issue and reach a conclusion. Those for the first argument will say how they understand the need to kill animals for food and clothing because we as a race need to survive as well, but anything more is cruel and should be stopped, while supporters for the second argument will curb their passion by stating that senseless killing that serves no purpose can be stopped but the right to kill as we please should be preserved in certain scenarios.

Both will go back and forth without significant gains. Knowing this, think on this idea:

We are, in a basic form, a species like any other. There are dozens, possibly hundreds of other species but I won't speak beyond what I know, that kill other animals (and each other) for what appears as mere sport (I use the word "sport" meaning for no purpose to benefit themselves or their community/species). In the case of our killing of other animals, I see no reason why we cannot see this as we would see any other species killing in the animal kingdom. We can kill as we please, whether it be for use or for sport. In case it's still unclear, I stand by reason two in the basic sense.

Including the fact that we are a more advanced species and have conscious thought that is far more sophisticated than any other creature on this Earth would drastically alter my opinion as I would be persuaded by my own sense of morality. However, in an argument I stand by the idea of debating facts in their rawest form; bias serves no purpose other than to cloud judgment and intelligence.

Intriguing question for sure.

 

[Sehnsucht]

hello hi welcome to smashboards

There are two sound sides to this question.

1) Killing animals is never right. Humans can survive without the slaughter of animals, as is proven daily by vegetarians and vegans who are just as healthy as...carnivores. Killing is wrong at this stage in mankind existence; we can exist and thrive as perfectly as we currently do, without the killing of animals (with some minor losses such as animal testing which is a completely separate issue).

2) Killing animals is right, regardless of the purpose behind the slaughter. This viewpoint is supported at a base by "survival of the fittest". The main ideology is further supported by the facts that we can/do use the animals for numerous practices that prove beneficial to our continued survival and/or personal comfort/desire. Whether it is to hunt for enjoyment, kill to prove dominance or attract a mate (I don't judge, you do you), or slaughter for what society would deem as more "practical" purposes such as clothing, food, etc, this argument simply believes that as the dominant species, we can kill as we please.

The middle ground that is being debated is simply individuals attempting to justify a warped version of these two arguments to the other side, in a vain attempt to resolve the issue and reach a conclusion. Those for the first argument will say how they understand the need to kill animals for food and clothing because we as a race need to survive as well, but anything more is cruel and should be stopped, while supporters for the second argument will curb their passion by stating that senseless killing that serves no purpose can be stopped but the right to kill as we please should be preserved in certain scenarios.

Both will go back and forth without significant gains.

These are the only two sound positions on this matter. Why?

You don’t explain yourself sufficiently. So let’s examine the implications of your statements:

[collapse=ON SOUNDNESS]
I suspect you qualify these two positions as “sound” because they are at the ends of the spectrum. As a result, their moral prescriptions are simple and can be applied universally across all circumstances:

“It is [NEVER] permissible to harm and/or kill animals, for whichever reason(s)” VS “It is [ALWAYS] permissible to harm and/or kill animals, for whichever reason(s)”

No conditionals, no exceptions, no calling a time-out to calculate the required moral prescriptions with every scenario. Either of these models can be applied efficiently and consistently, which are ideal attributes in any ethical model.

These qualities don’t make either position “sound”, however. Internally consistent, sure, but for something to be sound is for something to make sense to accept or do—to be rational and reasonable, to be concordant with reality. You propose both of these models as “sound”, but make no effort to explain why that is. Hence why I have to try and guess how you might justify these claims, as seen above.

You go on to say middle-ground approaches are not sound, because only the two ends of the spectrum are worth consideration. You say the middle-ground approach is a game of picking and choosing convenient bits and facts to align with one’s sensibilities, which will invoke more rules, more exceptions, and more prescriptions, and will thus become more unwieldy (and require more justifications) than the dichotomy you present.

Yet this is no necessary obstacle to the soundness of a model derived through these approaches. Perhaps there is a model that is even more sound than 1) or 2) which doesn’t adhere to that strict binary. Simple and efficient does not always correlate with superior or more reasonable.

All of this to say that I reject your dichotomy. Because if these really are the only two models, you haven’t done much at all to support that assertion. You simply baldly state that models that aren’t in your binary should be avoided, because it’s [individuals attempting to justify a warped version of these two arguments to the other side, in a vain attempt to resolve the issue and reach a conclusion]. That doesn’t explain why we should avoid “middle-ground” approaches. Nor how debates often resulting in stalemate means that we should avoid nuanced positions (and if person A strictly sides with 1) and B sides with 2), the probability of stalemate is very real anyway).
[/collapse]

As for your descriptions of those positions, I think they are poorly framed:

[collapse=ON FRAMING]
1) “Humans can survive without killing animals, therefore we should not kill animals”. In what way does the latter follow from the former? So what if we can subsist on non-carnivorous diets? In what way would following a vegetarian/vegan diet preclude anyone from killing animals anyway, for non-dietary reasons? This formulation is problematic, for reasons I go over later in this post.

2) “Survival of the fittest”, in an evolutionary context, does not mean “survival of the strongest”, or that “Might Makes Right”. This is a common misconception. Survival of the fittest means that organisms whose adaptations make them more suitable for life in their environment will have a greater chance of long-term survival. That is, they are fit to live in their environment. Strength and dominance are certainly strategies that can increase the fitness of an organism, but they are by no means the only strategies and adaptations at hand. As a result, invoking “survival of the fittest” doesn’t serve as much of a justification for the permissibility of animal killing.

Killing and harming animals because it serves beneficial purposes for us is a better argument. Though in the next sentence, you say that “humans are the dominant species, ergo this is justification for the continued permissibility of animal killing in all circumstances”. How does mankind being the apex of Earth’s ecology show that killing animals is justified? This is again another example of problematic formulation, like the kind seen in your framing of position 1).

In both cases, you attempt to frame both “sides” of the argument, yet neglect to show the math behind your assertions. Killing animals is always wrong because we don’t have to eat meat to survive; killing animals is always right because we’re the dominant species on the planet. You don’t explain yourself beyond this. So why should I accept either position? Let alone accept that these are the only two sound positions that exist? If these are indeed the two most-sound positions, you don’t seem to do a good job in adequately representing them (i.e. we CANNOT kill animals VS we CAN kill animals).
[/collapse]

Knowing this, think on this idea:

We are, in a basic form, a species like any other. There are dozens, possibly hundreds of other species but I won't speak beyond what I know, that kill other animals (and each other) for what appears as mere sport (I use the word "sport" meaning for no purpose to benefit themselves or their community/species). In the case of our killing of other animals, I see no reason why we cannot see this as we would see any other species killing in the animal kingdom. We can kill as we please, whether it be for use or for sport. In case it's still unclear, I stand by reason two in the basic sense.

Including the fact that we are a more advanced species and have conscious thought that is far more sophisticated than any other creature on this Earth would drastically alter my opinion as I would be persuaded by my own sense of morality. However, in an argument I stand by the idea of debating facts in their rawest form; bias serves no purpose other than to cloud judgment and intelligence.

Intriguing question for sure.

Your positions are replete with appeals to nature, which thus make them fallacious. An explanation of how this fallacy operates can be found below:

[collapse=ON THE APPEAL TO NATURE]
The appeal can be formulated as:

“It is the case that [X]; therefore, it is permissible for [Y].”

Here, one appeals to nature (i.e. the state of affairs in nature, the world, society, etc.) as sufficient justification for the moral permissibility (or non-permissibility) of a given action or behaviour.

In this case, your formulation is:

“It is the case that [animals kill each other in nature]; therefore, it is permissible [for humans to kill animals].”

But we can easily see why these appeals don’t hold much water. For I can just as easily say something like:

“It is the case that [some people have green eyes]; therefore, it is permissible to [kill green-eyed people].”

That seems rather preposterous, does it not? How does Y possibly follow logically from X? There is a gap in the formulation—hence the fallacy that is the appeal to nature.

In short, the problem is that you cannot derive a moral prescription (an ought) from a fact, or a description of a state of affairs (an is). You can certainly use facts to inform your prescriptions, but prescriptions don’t innately follow from facts.

Animals kill each other for various reasons, including food, self-defense, and even sport (as you put it). So what? In what way does any of this mean that we should or should not kill animals, whether universally or on a case-by-case basis?

The same problem applies to your other “fact”—the fact that humans are more “advanced”, and possess greater intelligence and self-awareness than seen in other species. In what way do these facts dictate that we should or should not kill animals that don’t possess these traits?

Debating only facts “in their rawest form” won’t get you very far, for these reasons. Ethics are a philosophical matter, first and foremost. You can use facts to inform and guide your position, but it is logic and reasoning that will support the bulk of your argument. Biases, emotional appeals, and other things that cloud one’s judgement are undesirable in any situation. But debating “raw facts” won’t prevent them from arising.

The point of a debate is that you believe a certain position to be true, and so argue for it (or defend it from scrutiny). The only way you can’t be biased is if you don’t stake your claim in debate at all (i.e. can’t win/lose if you don’t play). You can believe on an emotional level that, say, killing animals is never right. But what will make your case will be not your personal sensibilities, but the solidity and consistency of your argumentation, which can—but needn’t be—“clouded” by emotion and bias.
[/collapse]

Given all this, I would propose that you make (or reframe) your case without falling prey to the is/ought gap. Use propositions and axioms and syllogisms, in tandem with the facts, to show that killing animals is always permissible in all scenarios.

In any case, good inaugural post. If you're going to start your Smashboards career anywhere, the DH is as good a place as any.

 

[Rocket Raccoon]

Should there really be laws that protect animals? Should laws protect all animals? Should humans let nature be? Should humans kill animals for sport and eat them? What if it's for food in a dire situation or self-defense? What makes a good animal law and what doesn't?

Personally, I believe all animals need rights. Humans shouldn't be killing animals for sport at all. It is harming innocent creatures and what do you get out of it? Some food and boast about it to your friends? Would you like it if someone did that to you. I believe the only time you need to kill of you are in a life-or-death situation or if you stuck in a forest or something.



Discuss.

 

[DV8R001]

Whenever they're delicious.

 

[Braydon]

Whenever they're delicious.

So that justifies it? You know I hear humans taste like pork, I guess we should eat each other...

 

[ELITEWarri0r115]

Killing animals is never right. However... when holding a license for hunting them, (ex: deer) it's fine only if you're killing them for food. And I HATE killing animals. I will never hunt again... except fishing. I don't like eating fish, but hey, more food for my family at least.

 

[DV8R001]

So that justifies it? You know I hear humans taste like pork, I guess we should eat each other...

oh really? good idea

 

[Gutei]

Two reasons, in my opinion, and two only. The first is for survival and the balance of the environment. I live in a very poor area, but one surrounded by the natural woodland area of western PA (lots of rednecks, not a good time). Deer, squirrels, rabbits, turkey, etc. are all incredibly common and sometimes are too present. My father has hunted every year since he was young, but he enjoys it half as sport. I was made to do this, as well, and I'm quite the shot. However, I don't like killing. I stopped for about three years (college), but started this past again because my grandparents are monetarily defunct and need food. I kill for them to eat, plain and simple. It's still upsetting, but I must. Also, sometimes the environmental balance in an area is in danger due to overpopulation, so we must intervene sometimes. Sometimes it means restocking or reintroducing, but sometimes it means culling numbers - our interference is bad and we must artificially fix what we broke, so to say.

The second is for mercy. Have you ever come across an animal that is sick or dying? I hate putting physical harm (or harm of any type) on anything, regardless of species (or your attitude... looking at you, bad frat boys). But when I come across a deer with three broken legs on the road, or a rabbit that's bleeding out from being shot by somebody... I can guarantee you I will make sure that its suffering ends. That is not fair - dying alone and in horrible pain. I get incredibly upset by it, but I feel it is a blessing to have a painful end quickened. That's not to say I still don't have nightmares about it.

If you kill for sport and waste, or for no reason at all - you have no honor.

Source: I live on a farm and have had to help assist in the deaths of multiple cows, pigs, and other animals.

 

[Garrett Robinson]

Survival of the fittest justifies killing animals. If you disagree you haven't read enough and are ignorant of the subject.
EDIT: I apologize for the briefness of this post, but that the only people still arguing about this are just ignorant.

 

[Braydon]

Survival of the fittest justifies killing animals. If you disagree you haven't read enough and are ignorant of the subject.
EDIT: I apologize for the briefness of this post, but that the only people still arguing about this are just ignorant.

Survival of the fittest justifies it? How? Survival of the fittest isn't a moral code, it's just a natural phenomenon. It has absolutely nothing to do with what's right and wrong. Just because animals are hunted in nature doesn't make it right in any way. Ethics are based on emotions not natural selection.

Further more most animals killed are raised for food, selective breeding completely overrides survival of the fittest as the animals are no longer in a natural struggle for survival, there is no relevancy.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Survival of the fittest justifies killing animals. If you disagree you haven't read enough and are ignorant of the subject.
EDIT: I apologize for the briefness of this post, but that the only people still arguing about this are just ignorant.

There are two major points worth addressing here:

First, "Survival of the fittest" does not mean survival of the "strongest" or "fastest" or whatever else. In the context of evolutionary theory, it simply indicates that organisms who possess adaptations that allow them to survive in their environment -- long enough to spread their genes to the next generation -- will have a greater chance at long-term survival. In other words, organisms "most fit" to survive in their environment (hence the name).

I forget who said this, but to paraphrase, "survival of the fittest" ought perhaps to be changed to "survival of the just good enough". Just strong enough, just fast enough, just camouflaged enough, just small enough, just big enough, etc. etc. Because that's all it really takes to survive -- to be just good enough. An organism doesn't need to be exceptionally gifted in any respect in order to survive (or for their species to survive).

As for your argument proper, it seems to be structured as:

A) Animals kill one another in nature for various reasons;
B) Therefore, it is justified for humans to kill other animals.

But there's a gap here. The fact that animals kill each other all the time in no way indicates whether we ourselves should or should not kill animals (whether for food, for sport, for self-defense, etc.). Facts do not in themselves possess moral information; it is only when paired with value judgements that facts possess moral value. Facts can inform our ethical positions, but cannot dictate them. This is known as the Is/Ought problem -- you cannot derive an ought from an is.

Your argument, as a result, is actually structured as follows:

A) Animals kill one another in nature for various reasons;
B) ???
C) Therefore, it is justified for humans to kill other animals.

What is B)? The fact that animals kill each other alone doesn't lead to the conclusion C). So there's a gap of value judgement to be filled.

To appeal to facts of nature in themselves -- to say that something is morally right or wrong because it is the cause in nature -- is to commit an appeal to nature, also known as the naturalistic fallacy. So I would invite you to expand on what B) might be, so as to connect your fact A) to your conclusion C).

 

[Braydon]

@ Sehnsucht
Isn't that just what I wrote drawn out to six times length...

 

[Sehnsucht]

@ Sehnsucht
Isn't that just what I wrote drawn out to six times length...

I thought I'd go into a bit more detail as to the rationale behind the "survival of the fittest issue". You did note that it was irrelevant to the discussion on account that the topic concerns ethics (which are based in value judgements); I merely laid out the math behind the naturalistic fallacy and evolutionary concepts.

I was going to tag you you to note that I'd expand on your post, but I guess I cut that out. I was pressed for time by the time I finished.

 

[Garrett Robinson]

There are two major points worth addressing here:

First, "Survival of the fittest" does not mean survival of the "strongest" or "fastest" or whatever else. In the context of evolutionary theory, it simply indicates that organisms who possess adaptations that allow them to survive in their environment -- long enough to spread their genes to the next generation -- will have a greater chance at long-term survival. In other words, organisms "most fit" to survive in their environment (hence the name).

I forget who said this, but to paraphrase, "survival of the fittest" ought perhaps to be changed to "survival of the just good enough". Just strong enough, just fast enough, just camouflaged enough, just small enough, just big enough, etc. etc. Because that's all it really takes to survive -- to be just good enough. An organism doesn't need to be exceptionally gifted in any respect in order to survive (or for their species to survive).

As for your argument proper, it seems to be structured as:

A) Animals kill one another in nature for various reasons;
B) Therefore, it is justified for humans to kill other animals.

But there's a gap here. The fact that animals kill each other all the time in no way indicates whether we ourselves should or should not kill animals (whether for food, for sport, for self-defense, etc.). Facts do not in themselves possess moral information; it is only when paired with value judgements that facts possess moral value. Facts can inform our ethical positions, but cannot dictate them. This is known as the Is/Ought problem -- you cannot derive an ought from an is.

Your argument, as a result, is actually structured as follows:

A) Animals kill one another in nature for various reasons;
B) ???
C) Therefore, it is justified for humans to kill other animals.

What is B)? The fact that animals kill each other alone doesn't lead to the conclusion C). So there's a gap of value judgement to be filled.

To appeal to facts of nature in themselves -- to say that something is morally right or wrong because it is the cause in nature -- is to commit an appeal to nature, also known as the naturalistic fallacy. So I would invite you to expand on what B) might be, so as to connect your fact A) to your conclusion C).

I didn't write an argument, I felt the whole subject is a made up issue and that my response was appropriate in length.

 

[Sehnsucht]

I didn't write an argument, I felt the whole subject is a made up issue and that my response was appropriate in length.

If your position is that "survival of the fittest justifies killing animals", and/or that "ethical concerns over the treatment/killing of animals are misguided", then you've presented a position which can be debated/addressed/etc. by others. That's kind of how it goes in the Debate Hall.

If you just wanted to post an opinion and leave it at that, having not intended or planned on defending your positions, then your time might be better served outside the DH. Because if you post anything in the DH, it's subject to scrutiny by anyone who passes by.

 

[Braydon]

I didn't write an argument, I felt the whole subject is a made up issue and that my response was appropriate in length.

Empathy, a made up issue.

Seriously though stop trolling.

 

[Soup's On!]

I feel like this is a topic I should be able to answer, but I'm having a nightmare of a time writing out my opinion on it. So here is the verbal equivalent of flailing my arms around.

First off, animals suffer. If my cat is sick, it's pretty obviously unhappy with its being-sick ways until it gets better. If I drop-kick a dog, it's pretty clearly going to be in a lot of pain and, if I keep doing it, eventually be scared of me because it knows the boot is coming. Many more intelligent animals feel pain, don't like pain, and try to avoid pain when possible. That's enough for me to give their pain moral consideration.

How much consideration? I don't see too many compelling reasons to consider human needs more important than animal needs. What is the defining thing that all humans have that no animals have, and what makes it so great that it puts us above all other species? Outside of "being human", which would just be favoritism off species alone, I can't think of any quality that meets that criteria in the first place, much less why it'd be so great. So, if humans aren't any special, then animal suffering isn't any less important.

What about animals that don't feel pain, or we're not sure what their deal is in regards to the nervous system and such? I'd say in those cases we should probably give them the benefit of the doubt and try not to do anything that would cause suffering to them, instead of causing suffering just from ignorance.

So when's it okay to kill animals?

In self-defense? I suppose if somebody is legitimately straight-up trying to kill you, and you end up killing them in your attempt to protect yourself, that would be acceptable. So, yes, I'd say you can kill an animal in self-defense.

For food? No. We are advanced enough that we've come up with ways to survive that don't involve needing to kill animals. Raising animals to kill them for food, especially in CAFOs, is a lot of suffering in a lot of animals, and is largely unnecessary outside of the mmm-mmm-good of animal products. If animal suffering needs moral consideration, then it's pretty wrong to subject animals to suffering for something as unnecessary and rather trivial as "mmm-mmm-good".

I SUPPOSE I would be satisfied with Pleasant Ranch, where the animals feel lots and lots of happiness, never suffer, and immediately die peaceful deaths with no suffering whatsoever. Though, that is a very unlikely scenario to happen in reality (I question if we can truly painlessly kill something), and we'd be raising animals with the intent to kill them later, which my intuition suggests to me is still bad but I've typed enough and that might be getting off the rails here.