Convenience is a real benefit but usually a limited one
Convenience can save time, money and effort. These benefits matter, but they are usually less morally urgent than preventing severe pain, fear or prolonged confinement.
The seriousness of the harm matters
Not every human use of animals causes the same level of suffering. Ethical judgement should consider intensity, duration, number of animals affected and whether death is involved.
Available alternatives change the justification
A practice may be easier to defend where survival or health genuinely depends upon it. The justification becomes weaker when practical alternatives are readily available.
Tradition and habit can disguise convenience
Practices may feel necessary because they are familiar. Familiarity does not prove that the underlying benefit is important enough to outweigh the harm.
Economic convenience can transfer costs
Low prices and efficient production may depend upon animals bearing costs that would otherwise be paid through higher prices, slower production or changed human behaviour.
Moral consistency requires comparison
If similar suffering inflicted upon a companion animal would be condemned, species or customary use alone may not justify treating another sentient animal differently.
Evidence notes
Assessment should examine the severity and duration of suffering, the human benefit obtained, available alternatives, economic incentives and whether the same reasoning would be accepted in comparable cases.
Ethical questions
How much animal suffering can a minor human convenience justify?
Does a cheaper or easier product count as a necessity?
Would we accept the same treatment of an animal we regarded as a companion?
Conclusion
Human convenience alone is generally insufficient to justify serious animal suffering. The greater and more avoidable the harm, the stronger the justification must be.