Argument Quote by David Benatar
““One particularly poor argument in defence of eating meat is that if humans did not eat animals, those animals would not have been brought into existence in the first place. Humans would simply not have bred them in the numbers they do breed them. The claim is that although these animals are killed, this cost to them is outweighed by the benefit to them of having been brought into existence. This is an appalling argument for many reasons. First, the lives of many of these animals are so bad that even if one rejected my argument one would still have to think that they were harmed by being brought into existence. Secondly, those who advance this argument fail to see that it could apply as readily to human babies that are produced only to be eaten. Here we see quite clearly that being brought into existence only to be killed for food is no benefit. It is only because killing animals is thought to be acceptable that the argument is thought to have any force.””
About This Quote
Source Essay: The Ethics of Eating Meat, 2015
Argues that creating beings solely to kill them is morally indefensible, comparing it to breeding humans for consumption.
In simple terms: Creating life just to kill it is wrong.
Key Takeaway
Reject arguments that justify harming sentient beings.
Themes
ethics
animal rights
life value
Mood
thoughtful
challenging
Type
philosophical
argumentative
When to use this quote
- dietary choices
- animal farming
- philosophical debate
- ethical activism
Key Concepts
utilitarianism
speciesism
moral philosophy
Questions to Reflect On
- Is it ever permissible to bring a being into existence for a purpose?
- How do we balance human needs with animal rights?
A Different Perspective
The argument assumes all life has equal moral weight, which may be contested.
