I'd actually say yes, but that doesn't necessarily justify the action simply because it's less wrong than something else.

Anyways, on topic. It's not the same because the kitten is still alive and the potato is already dead.
I've also skimmed some research on plant consciousness. It's clear plant's are complex organisms, but don't necessarily feel, think like animals do. Many however, have defense mechanism's to ensure their survival. Ultimately, neither plant or animal "wants" to die. Though they may process differently. So why should animals be prioritized simply due to their sentience? So I ask the same question as I did before, is there any circumstance in which a painless animal kill would be equivalent to a plant kill? A few factors to take into account I presume would be how the animal's death would affect others, perhaps the animals intellectual and emotional capacity as well.

It's also interesting, because apparently some philosophers that advocate veganism draw the line with different animals. For Singer, I think it's oysters. I presume the line is drawn for valid reason. So at what point do vegans demarcate? Is there a certain level of sentience or lack of? Or just none at all?

When the conditions in which they are confined are atrocious, of course it would be preferable for an animal to live freely. However, that's not always the case. So what would you say then? Furthermore, wouldn't it also depend on the animal in question and what is needed for them to live a satisfactory life, which is why I don't understand the relevance of what a human would do in that situation. Additionally, many types of pets live confined, but are seemingly content. Not having concern for predators, starvation, dehydration, extreme weather. Barring any abuse or inadequate conditions enforced from an external figure, it doesn't seem too far fetched for other animals or even a human to prefer that life style to the wild. Of course, other things to consider would be how an animals lifestyle would be in the wild, some are far more parlous than others.

Ah I see. But the question still stands as to whether a painless animal kill is equivalent to a plant or insect kill. Which removes the variable of an animal's capacity to feel pain. Do we now determine what to consume based on intellectual capacity?

Not sure i understand.. If you consume animals, aren't you therefore reducing the amount of plants consumed? Assuming plant's have the capacity for suffering.

If someone's criteria is suffering, I don't see any ethical dilemma as plants don't feel pain.

Though I do have a question. Is a painless animal kill equivalent to a plant kill?

If someones basis is intellectual capacity however, it seems like it becomes much less clear.

Why assume the short lived wild animal would have suffered anymore than the long lived animal? It could just as likely be both animals live "free from pain and suffering" until the short lived one is quickly killed by a hunter and the other is likely to suffer a gruesome death.

Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but I don't feel like reading through the entire thread..

But what do vegans think of hunters? You could argue that hunting a wild animal quickly and painlessly is ethically preferable to an animal that is very likely to die in a gruesome or painful manner. I don't know how statistically common it is for an animal to die due to their maximum age capacity, but even if that's the case I'd wager that's not a painless death.