Takes a great deal of mental gymnastics to try and convince yourself there's some "kind" way to take a sentient creature's life. The "kindest" thing to do would just be to leave them alone.
It doesnt take any mental gymnastics to think of a solution when you are set on having butter soaked lobster meat for dinner.
We are.
That my cat, or any other animal, kills things in order to eat them in no way obligates me to do so.
The is in this particular thread is what "literally the entirety of the natural world" thinks is "food".
The ought is whether we should "think" likewise, or use our purported rationality to consider the implications of that behavior.
The "naturalistic fallacy" — normally used to deride people we like to think, rightly or otherwise, are less rational than ourselves — is, literally, "if it's natural, it must be good/right/proper." The notion under discussion is exactly that.
It's not about whether or not we should all be vegetarians; it's about fallacious "arguments" that we shouldn't.
What do you mean by this? Are you talking about Pavlovian conditioning? Also, just to make sure that we are on the same page, my understanding is that _cognitive dissonance_ refers to a discomfort felt when holding views that contradict each other.
- One should avoid causing unnecessary harm to another conscious being
- Many non-human animals are conscious beings
- It is practical to survive on nutrients not derived from the harm of conscious beings
If you accept those three statements, then you should be uncomfortable with the idea of consuming nutrients derived from the harm of something conscious. If you choose to do it anyhow, you'll experience cognitive dissonance (where the definitions of "harm" and "consciousness" remain constant throughout the described scenario).
ie. cake, slavery, child porn, etc.. (although clearly these are not on the same level to anyone except the lobster.)
For example if someone has been sentenced to death it's kind to do so with a lethal injection, but unkind to do so by crucifixion as the Romans used to love to do.
The killing method can't justify the killing but the assumption here is that you've already made your piece with eating the animal. So the only thing left is to try not make is suffer more than required for you to eat it.
Nature is generally not so kind. Many predators eat their pray alive, it'd be a rather horrific way to go.
I suspect you may not agree with eating animals at all, if so I think that is a separate argument.
Test: do you want that kind of mercy levied on you?