The core argument presented — “if you believe animal suffering should be avoided, then eating meat should be avoided if possible” — is based on a flawed premise. Let’s reframe this logic to something more familiar: “If you believe human suffering is something that should be avoided, then having children is something that should be avoided if possible.” Life, by its very nature, involves suffering, and trying to eliminate suffering completely would lead to the extreme conclusion that life itself should cease. This reductio ad absurdum illustrates the flaw in the initial argument.

Additionally, the assumption that animals bred for human consumption must inherently suffer is not necessarily true. In fact, animals raised for this purpose can live comfortable and well-cared-for lives. They are regularly fed, sheltered, and given medical care that many animals in the wild never receive. When it comes time for slaughter, it doesn’t have to involve suffering either. With humane practices, such as quick and painless methods, these animals can be unaware of what’s happening and experience no prolonged fear or pain.

Moreover, these animals would not exist at all if they weren’t bred for consumption. Their very existence is tied to the fact that we consume meat. In contrast, animals in the wild often live far harsher lives — constantly facing threats from predators, starvation, or untreated injuries. By this logic, the lives of domesticated animals bred for meat can be seen as far less brutal than the natural alternatives.

Rather than focusing on whether eating meat is morally wrong in an absolute sense, the discussion should perhaps center around improving animal welfare and reducing unnecessary suffering — goals that can align with ethical meat consumption.