Just finished replaying gta4 a week ago, I just ignored the relationship bait and had no issues. It’s entirely optional.

Practically speaking.

potential suffering that might happen in the future

WILL happen in the future. Is guaranteed to happen in the future.

deciding to kill something, because you think it is best for them

My argument is that from a utilitarian viewpoint it’s not just best for them, but it prevents future suffering for all their offspring. Not just the suffering of one, but of untold millions.

Obviously I don’t think a utilitarian approach like this is the right way to proceed.

Extending human ethics toward non-humans is a questionable endeavor at best. That being said, I personally don’t like extra unnecessary suffering, which is why I prefer eating humanely raised and killed animals.

Taking the minimization of suffering to its logical conclusion, however, animals suffer in the wild without human intervention, so the most humane thing to do would be to exterminate them all. This would prevent any future suffering entirely.

Surely you see a problem with such a utilitarian approach?

I got downvotes for mentioning I’m planning on taking some of our overpopulated deer.

Maybe we should reintroduce wolves instead, eh?

That’s why I prefer New Zealand or Australian lamb. Just lamb living their best lamb lives out on pastures.

Can’t wait for deer season this year so I can restock on venison.

Brushing aside moral considerations, cannibalism leads to things like kuru, so that’s a no go either way.

I have no qualms eating animals, provided they weren’t factory farmed.

How’s that messed up? This is literally how the natural world works. Predators eat prey. We are the apex predator species.