Consider this nonsense "thought experiment".

Sen describes a problem of divergent views on justice in which you have one flute and three children who want it. One child wants the flute because she knows how to play it, the second one wants it because he is poor and doesn't have toys, and the third one says she made the flute, so she should get it. Who do you give it to?

One take is that this is a silly question.

this is not really such a puzzling question, is it? The correct answer is: It all depends on how “you” ended up with the flute!

Is the flute yours because you provided the materials (which were yours) and paid the kid who made it? If so, you can give it to anyone you want, or you can keep it. It’s yours! Did you steal it from the kid who made it? Then you should give it to the kid who made it. It’s hers! You’ve got no right to redistribute her flute.

The purpose of such "thought experiments" isn't to determine the answer, it is to sell the assumption, in this case that there is no such thing as poperty rights and so ignore the fact that a satisfying solution to the not-really-puzzling- question is readily apparent.

It's a common debate tactic, especially in academics and punditry where there is no honor or integrity, only victory, and it is the meat of politics and culture war.

Is It Ethical To Engineer Delicious Cows That Feel No Pain?

. . . for those with moral pangs, scientists say genetic engineering might provide a solution, by creating pain-free animals that can satiate the human appetite without suffering.

A paper published this month in the journal Neuroethics argues for minimizing animal suffering by creating beasts that lack the ability to sense pain. . .

If creating pain-free cows, pigs, and other animals sounds unpalatable, another alternative for a cruelty-free burger may soon arise -- growing meat from cells in a lab. Scientists around the world have already managed the feat with varying degrees of success, although a commercially tasty and viable product remains a ways off.

The question is nonsense but its purpose is to sell the assumption that pain and cruelty are a big part of livestock raising, a notion that can't stand the light of scrutiny so it is merely assumed. It is complete nonsense for cattle since it is counter-productive to harm them. It slows their growth to stress them. They do whack one another a bit since that's how they conduct their social lives, and there are painful parts of life like child birth, but the notion that they have lives of pain, suffering and cruelty is idiotic. Even at slaughter they feel no pain since they are stunned prior to slaughter. They never see it coming.

There is a reason to pursue the ability to culture animal flesh in vats just as there is a reason to seek ways to grow vegetable flesh that way: it would be cheaper and put less stress on the environment. It's not a sensible moral question, though there are a lot of nonsense moral arguments bandied about.