By protecting the weaker group in combination with a guarantee for freedom we surpass nature. It does not matter whether the call is based on economic or on emotional grounds or whether the existence of factory farms is defended with the argument that jobs and national interests are 'endangered'. Basic rights come first and last. To weight economic consequences as equal is immoral. Inconsistent policy concerning animals Freedom for individual animals can suddenly no longer be taken for granted if the species becomes economically attractive or happens to taste good.
Humans thus have an inconsistent policy where animals are concerned.
But for animals in nature, on the other hand, we are so generous that we release them unconditionally. We even plan this freedom by restructuring our countryside on the basis of ecological highways. These paths give animals and even plants the ability to move freely within certain binderies and thus guarantee the survival of the species. As long as the commercial exploitation of animals is 'limited' to fencing off a meadow to keep the cattle in, few people will object. It only becomes a problem when this individual space is confined too much, leaving no freedom of movement.