Is taking away an animal's freedom worse than killing it?

Killing: the most extreme deprivation of freedom

Animal Freedom emphasises freedom. That might give the impression that we consider slaughtering an animal less bad than taking away its freedom while it grows up. That is not the case. Killing is the most extreme form of deprivation of freedom. The only difference is that it is irreversible: in a short time, all of a being's choices are ended for good.

In criminal law too, killing and long-term deprivation of liberty, such as hostage-taking, are both punished severely. Restricting someone's freedom is only allowed as a punishment or to protect the freedom of others. Only the state may do so.

Whoever assumes that it is acceptable to eat animals has not yet gained the right to restrict the freedom of the animal during its life to an extreme degree.

Side track: culling healthy animals during disease outbreaks

During outbreaks of animal diseases, healthy animals are also killed on a large scale. In the past this was mainly about foot-and-mouth disease and swine fever, today it is mostly bird flu. In the United States alone, more than 200 million birds have been culled since 2022. In Europe too, millions of chickens, ducks and turkeys are killed every year. Most people reject the killing of healthy animals. Vaccination is an alternative: France has been vaccinating ducks since 2023 and other countries are preparing to vaccinate laying hens.

Is your food worth this life?

Calves raised for veal spend their first weeks alone in a box. In the European Union they must be kept in groups after eight weeks. After about half a year they go to slaughter. Watch the images and ask yourself: is your food worth this life?

Species versus individual

Animals need their own areas where they can find rest and freedom. That is why connected nature networks are so important. The rights of a species come before those of an individual: if a plant species is threatened with extinction, you may forbid people to disturb its habitat.

According to the scheme below, genetic modification of plants is allowed, provided the consequences are fully known. Genetic modification of and experiments on animals that restrict their natural behaviour should be banned.

In a scheme

	Plant	Animal	Human
Killing an individual is allowed	yes	yes	no
Wiping out a species is allowed	yes	no	no
Restricting the natural behaviour of an individual is allowed	yes	no	no
Restricting the natural behaviour of a species is allowed	yes	no	no
An individual has rights	no	yes	yes
A species has rights	yes	yes	yes

Read more about ethics, livestock farming and food on our ethical barometer. Freedom is a basic right for animals just as it is for us.

Is hunting for pleasure natural?

humour Hunting for pleasure is unnatural. In nature, one animal hardly ever kills another for fun, but as part of the food chain. In that sense the hunting instinct of the "sporting" hunter is unnatural and loveless. If there were less hunting, many animals would also show themselves more.

Let a hunter "shoot" with a camera instead. That is just as exciting and a true way of honouring freedom. Arguments against hunting for pleasure can be found among the fallacies.

Sources: USDA via The Poultry Site (2026); EU Council Directive 2008/119/EC on the protection of calves. Updated October 2026.