> I will not draw false equivalency here so as to be put in the position of having to have the same moral standards for how we treat animals as we treat people
Again, no-one is suggesting this. Animals need only have some capacity for suffering (and pleasure), to have some moral standing.
> Herds of domesticated pigs exist because _we created them_, by domesticating and farming them over thousands of years. Evolutionarily, they owe their existence to mankind. We're certainly not going to let them die out.
This has no connection to the moral question, much like your earlier point about how the animals are destined to ultimately die.
When we reason about whether an action constitutes animal cruelty, it is of no concern where the animal came from, or whether its species will continue to survive, or whether mankind is the reason for the continuing survival of its species.
> There is a distinct difference between animal cruelty (hurting an animal for your own personal amusement) versus farming an animal in a cost effective way (which it may not enjoy)
In terms of the suffering imposed on the animal, there's no difference whether the action was done out of a sadistic motive, or a profit motive. Either way, the animal is made to suffer for the benefit of the person.
That said, I agree that intent is an important factor in moral (as well as legal) reasoning. Like anyone, I'd judge someone far more harshly for torturing a pig just for the hell of it, than someone who mistreats animals in their professional capacity as a farm worker. If someone harmed an animal in an act of self defence, we wouldn't call that an act of cruelty. Still though, I see no reason to dismiss the question of whether the meat industry is a form of industrialised cruelty. I can see plenty of reasons to conclude that it is, and little reason to conclude that it's not.
> I'm fine with improvements to their standard of living as long as meat remains affordable to everyone.
I don't see that we should necessarily make a goal of maintaining meat availability and low pricepoint. (All of this applies just as well to other animal products, but let's stick with meat.) Meat is currently cheaply available, but this hasn't always been the case, and it doesn't in itself mean it should continue to be so.
There are also other issues with animal farming. Animal farming is a major source of (human) infectious diseases. [0]
As I said, no-one is suggesting it does.
> I will not draw false equivalency here so as to be put in the position of having to have the same moral standards for how we treat animals as we treat people
Again, no-one is suggesting this. Animals need only have some capacity for suffering (and pleasure), to have some moral standing.
> Herds of domesticated pigs exist because _we created them_, by domesticating and farming them over thousands of years. Evolutionarily, they owe their existence to mankind. We're certainly not going to let them die out.
This has no connection to the moral question, much like your earlier point about how the animals are destined to ultimately die.
When we reason about whether an action constitutes animal cruelty, it is of no concern where the animal came from, or whether its species will continue to survive, or whether mankind is the reason for the continuing survival of its species.
> There is a distinct difference between animal cruelty (hurting an animal for your own personal amusement) versus farming an animal in a cost effective way (which it may not enjoy)
In terms of the suffering imposed on the animal, there's no difference whether the action was done out of a sadistic motive, or a profit motive. Either way, the animal is made to suffer for the benefit of the person.
That said, I agree that intent is an important factor in moral (as well as legal) reasoning. Like anyone, I'd judge someone far more harshly for torturing a pig just for the hell of it, than someone who mistreats animals in their professional capacity as a farm worker. If someone harmed an animal in an act of self defence, we wouldn't call that an act of cruelty. Still though, I see no reason to dismiss the question of whether the meat industry is a form of industrialised cruelty. I can see plenty of reasons to conclude that it is, and little reason to conclude that it's not.
> I'm fine with improvements to their standard of living as long as meat remains affordable to everyone.
I don't see that we should necessarily make a goal of maintaining meat availability and low pricepoint. (All of this applies just as well to other animal products, but let's stick with meat.) Meat is currently cheaply available, but this hasn't always been the case, and it doesn't in itself mean it should continue to be so.
There are also other issues with animal farming. Animal farming is a major source of (human) infectious diseases. [0]
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7399585/