Are complicated:
[One] objection made to pheasant shooting is that people don’t eat the pheasants they shoot. If factory farming animals is justified by the fact that we eat the animals, then perhaps shooting pheasants is justifiable only when the pheasants are eaten. But what is it about eating animals that justifies harmful farming?
If we needed the nutritional value provided by meat, our justification might be something akin to self-defence. That is manifestly not the case – those who shoot pheasants, like those in the developed world who buy meat from the supermarket, could get all the calories and vitamins they needed from other sources if they chose to. In developed countries, we eat meat primarily for pleasure. Therefore, if our practice of farming animals to eat is justified, it must be justified by the pleasure people get from eating meat. It seems reasonable to suppose that people who go shooting enjoy doing so, and that that pleasure is comparable to the pleasure of eating a piece of meat. Does that mean that the practice of shooting pheasants is no worse than that of eating meat?
Julia Kennedy interviews Peter Singer on some related ethical issues.
The Dish 