Why is it wrong to be concerned with how an animal is slaughtered?

You are entitled to air your concerns and ask people to consider slaughter of animals to be pain free and humane but you must appreciate that other people have different priorities to you.

I think it's Blbecause either way the animal is still being slaughtered.If you are so concerned about the way the animal should die maybe it's better not to eat it at all so it doesn't have to die.There is no "nice" or "humane" way to kill something that doesn't want to die.

You are correct in that they are not mutually exclusive and whilst some people are concerned with the (now dead) life of an animal, many simply do not care.

However, it's all about priorities.

For example, to a Jew or a Muslim, the manner in which an animal is slaughtered is paramount but they also have ethics in place to ensure that animal must be treated well throughout it's life.

For a company, saving costs (to make more profit) is the priority so it makes sense to engage in battery farming and wholesale slaughter.

For others, like yourself, you are concerned with the slaughter being pain-free and humane so you choose the option that sits right with you.

You are entitled to air your concerns and ask people to consider slaughter of animals to be pain free and humane but you must appreciate that other people have different priorities to you.

The main issue is that rapid mass slaughter of animals is never going to be particularly humane. Just watch hidden camera footage of what goes on. Possibly stunning, before having your throat cut, is slightly better but it's all a bit academic. And certainly doesn't warrant the ignorant religious ranting that you come across. The only moral stance if you're going to get on a high horse is vegetarianism, if not veganism.

The main issue is that rapid mass slaughter of animals is never going to be particularly humane. Just watch hidden camera footage of what goes on. Possibly stunning, before having your throat cut, is slightly better but it's all a bit academic. And certainly doesn't warrant the ignorant religious ranting that you come across. The only moral stance if you're going to get on a high horse is vegetarianism, if not veganism.

I don't see why not, or why that can't be something we aim for.

To me, wanting to eat meat and being concerned about how the animal is slaughtered are not mutually exclusive.

You talk about doing so in the most pain-free and humane way possible. Yet, even in secular slaughterhouses, the stunning process goes wrong in a significant proportion of cases, with academic estimates ranging from 12.5% to 40% of stuns going wrong, leading to millions upon millions of animals dying in intense pain every year.

So, the question is, how can you tell whether the animal you're eating has been slaughtered humanely or not? The answer is that you can't. And, random investigations of secular slaughterhouses demonstrate this too. Furthermore, many pigs are gassed these days, yet they're clearly in a great deal of distress for the at least 20 seconds they spend gasping for their breath and trying to escape. (See here and here, for instance) These are animals, recall, who are demonstrably more intelligent than human toddlers. CCTV in slaughterhouses would be a step forward, but the meat industry is opposing this for obvious reasons: they don't want us to see what goes on.

Another problem is that in the confinement and transportation of the animals, they suffer a lot too. Yet, many people who complain about slaughter alone do not acknowledge this. In essence, if people really did want to minimise the amount of suffering they inflict on animals, they would reduce their consumption of meat and other animal products and eliminate this consumption eventually. There's no logical reason not to. This is the suffering of other sentient beings we're talking about here.

So, the question is, how can you tell whether the animal you're eating has been slaughtered humanely or not? The answer is that you can't.

To me, wanting to eat meat and being concerned about how the animal is slaughtered are not mutually exclusive.

If we are going to kill something, human or animal, then I see nothing wrong with trying to do so in the most pain-free and humane way possible, whether: animals for meat, culling animal populations, executing humans for crimes, killing humans on the battlefield, etc.

Nobody would bat an eyelid at a soldier protesting against a military weapon being introduced that causes pain, so why is there an issue if people protest against slaughtering an animal in a way that is not the most pain-free?

And I don't just refer to religious methods. I mean all methods which are not aimed at being the most humane and pain-free.

I don't get this. You're killing an animal i.e. depriving it of life either way so you can eat it. There isn't a humane way to "kill" something. The most humane thing to do would be to let it live.

The circumstances you describe should be improved to the most pain-free and humane point possible.

Yes, it would be ideal if we could eliminate meat consumption altogether, but while that's not the case (probably because we haven't developed an adequate synthetic alternative), there is nothing wrong with consuming meat but still seeking the most humane means of slaughter.

I don't see why not, or why that can't be something we aim for.

I don't get this. You're killing an animal i.e. depriving it of life either way so you can eat it. There isn't a humane way to "kill" something. The most humane thing to do would be to let it live.