The Natural Death Argument

Argument #2 of 13

The Argument

Consider the life of a wild deer. In nature, there are essentially three ways it will die: (1) torn apart by predators while still alive and conscious, (2) slow starvation when it becomes too old or sick to forage, or (3) debilitating disease. None of these are peaceful. A predator doesn't wait for the deer to die before eating it—it begins feeding while the deer is still alive, still feeling. This can take minutes or even hours. Starvation is a prolonged, miserable death. Disease can mean weeks of suffering.

Now compare that to a skilled hunter who kills the deer instantly with a well-placed shot. The deer never knows what happened. It was alive, eating grass, and then it wasn't. This is objectively less suffering than any "natural" death the deer would have experienced. If we truly care about reducing animal suffering, we should support ethical hunting, not oppose it. The vegans who want to "let nature take its course" are actually advocating for more suffering, not less.

The Response

This argument can be distilled to a simple logical structure:

1. Humans have a responsibility to stop animal suffering
2. Animals suffer from disease, starvation, and predation
3. Animals can no longer suffer when they are dead
4. Conclusion: Therefore, humans ought to kill animals to stop them from suffering

When stated this plainly, the absurdity becomes clear. No further rebuttal is required.