While these things are horrific, it's not much more horrific than what continuously goes on in the animal kingdom.
You're missing the key concepts of (a) the inability of non-human predators to reason about morality, (b) the inability of non-human predators to survive on a plant-based diet, and (c) the moral cost of performing such a genocide.
A better argument would be that in the animal kingdom animals often suffer horrible deaths, but that after living a free life until that moment. Industrial farms are misery from birth on.
The inability of non-human predators to reason about morality (a) is relevant because I would not wish imposed upon myself (say, by an extraterrestrial race) a morality which I am utterly incapable of even understanding the existence of. Since that is true, by the categorical imperative, I cannot hold to the same morality non-reasoning animals (or those which I cannot prove to reason).
The inability of non-human predators to survive on a plant-based diet (b) is similarly relevant. I would not wish to be held to a morality that precludes my survival. Most apex predators are strictly carnivorous and therefore cannot be held to any morality consistent with the categorical maxim which precludes eating animals.
(c) Can you please clarify why you do not consider the statement "we should exterminate all predators" to imply genocide?
I don't disagree with the alternative argument you provide, but it relies on degrees of suffering, which seems inherently difficult to measure. I am trying to provide an argument based solely on the logical (in)consistency of the GP's statement without introducing any new measures.
Ok, so perhaps it's relevant in a philosophical sense but not in any kind of practical sense. We know better than to humanely kill animals and eat them, so instead we will leave them in the fields to be ripped apart by other animals. Which is ok because the predators didn't know it was bad.
I'm personally ok with eating animals because that's just nature. It would be better to be caught by a human hunter than most predators. I also don't see animals as having some higher purpose, i.e. killing an animal to eat it is not the same as killing a human to eat them. If you believe killing animals is wrong because they are living beings then how can you reconcile killing plants?
In my opinion the problem is these industrial farms. There is a never ending pressure to bring prices down so that means cutting corners for the animals who can't write their congressman.
I would like to see something done to shape behavior. For example, if you waste meat you should have to pay, say 10x the price of that meat. Restaurants would pass this charge onto their customers and hopefully we would have people asking for less meat on their plates pretty quickly. Which should drive demand down some.
>(c) Can you please clarify why you do not consider the statement "we should exterminate all predators" to imply genocide?
Of course it does imply genocide but it obviously wasn't a serious suggestion, it was poking fun at the other position.
>I am trying to provide an argument based solely on the logical (in)consistency of the GP's statement without introducing any new measures.
Ok, then I concede you have effectively done that. What I was reacting to is that such an argument doesn't help anything. So it's morally inconsistent, so what? I like the taste of meat and pointing out some logical formula that says I shouldn't doesn't effect anything.
We won't make life better for the animals by pointing out logical inconsistencies. We'll make life better for them by driving behavior.
a) Morality is not viewpoint dependent. An repugnant act is not suddenly acceptable if the perpetrator lacks moral reasoning capabilities. While we do not hold insane people responsible for their criminal actions we do, in fact, stop them from doing it.
b) Morality is not dependent upon extenuating circumstances. If I murder you and steal your last loaf of bread because I am starving, it may be understandable but it is still murder.
c) The moral cost of not performing the genocide pales compared to the established moral cost (for the purposes of this discussion) of allowing the ongoing, millinia long "murder" of the prey animals to continue for untold generations to come.
Where's your evidence for this?
In the animal kingdom, isn't death due to predators rather quick?
In factory farms, the animal's entire lifetime is one of outrageous torture, e.g. feeding cows a corn diet that shreds their stomach wall, and forcing them to stay alive through the pain with massive courses of antibotics. Or keeping chickens in cages so small they can't even turn around.
Not always. A lot of predator species are known to play with their prey.
Few predators "finish off" their prey though they may often kill it during the hunt, once the prey animal is disabled they start to feed.
House cats, for instance, will capture, release and recapture the prey animal, sometimes for hours.
Wolves and Dogs will hunt and not feed, often leaving the prey animal to die from it's wounds.
Also look into how predators teach their young to hunt. It is very unpleasant.
I'm not saying that factory farming should be allowed. In fact, I think future generations will correctly judge us harshly for the unnecessary atrocity that is modern agriculture.