They Kill Each Other, So Why Shouldn't We Kill Them?

In conversations about animal rights and about the moral issues with killing and eating animals, people sometimes put forth the argument that we are justified in killing nonhuman animals, whether via hunting or via slaughterhouse, because other animal species kill and eat other animals too. It's an argument that's been suggested on this blog before. As long as wild nonhuman animals keep killing and eating each other, we should be able to keep killing and eating wild and domesticated animals too--what we're doing is no different, right? Wrong. Take it away, Tom Regan:

Sometimes critics object to animal rights because of how animals treat other animals . . . . For example, critics point out that lions eat gazelles . . . then ask how it can be wrong if we eat steak. The most obvious difference in the two cases is that lions have to eat other animals in order to survive. We do not. So what a lion must do does not logically translate into what we may do.

In addition, it is worth noting how much this objection diverges from our normal practice. Most people who raise this challenge drive cars, wear clothes, use computers, and write checks. Other animals do not do any of these things. Should we therefore stop living as we live, stop doing what we do, and start imitating animals? Are the people who raise this objection prepared to go feral? I know of no critic of animal rights  who advocates anything remotely like this. Why, then, place what carnivorous animals eat in a unique category as being the one and only thing they do that we should imitate? Without exception, when I have asked this question, no credible answer has been given. (Empty Cages, 2004, p. 67)

Gary Francione has a little something to say about this too (emphasis mine):

Question: But nonhuman animals eat other nonhumans in the wild, so isn’t it okay for us to eat them?

Answer: No. First of all, although some animals eat each other in the wild, many do not. Many animals are vegans. Moreover, there is far more cooperation in nature than our imagined “cruelty of nature” would have us believe.

Second, whether animals eat other animals is beside the point. How is it relevant whether animals eat other animals? Some animals are carnivorous and cannot exist without eating meat. We do not fall into that category; we can get along fine without eating meat, and more and more people are taking the position that our health and environment would both benefit from a shift away from a diet of animal products.

Third, animals do all sorts of things that humans do not regard as morally appropriate. For example, dogs copulate and defecate in the street. Does that mean that we should follow their example?

Fourth, it is interesting that when it is convenient for us to do so, we attempt to justify our exploitation of animals by resting on our supposed “superiority.” And when our supposed “superiority” gets in the way of what we want to do, we suddenly portray ourselves as nothing more than another species of wild animal, as entitled as foxes to eat chickens.