so you're saying it's just straight up moral relativism, a theory of ethics that doesn't actually allow any questioning of morality, like divine command theory.
this isn't an answer
can you tell me what ethical system says morality determined by society? it's been a few years since my philosophy degree, and it wasn't specialized in ethics, but I seem to remember moral relativism as being universally appalling.
laws have nothing to do with morality. laws protect the powerful and the at social institutions that made them powerful. the fact that private property laws exist means powerful people depend on private property to maintain power.
they could choose to say that, but instead they said natural, implying there are dairy cattle roaming in nature, and we know how long they live. they made a claim that simply isn't evidenced.
tautologically, everything people do is artificial.
the claim is their natural life span is 15 to 20 years, but that's simply untrue. that's an artificial life span.
no one is advocating for inhumane treatment of animals.
do you have any data on the domesticated species surviving without artificial assistance?
if you have the data I'll gladly read it
I don't know of any. which is what I've been saying: the claim I'm objecting to is untested.
your version is no more defensible than divine command theory, and it's totally useless for debating what we ought to think is moral.