Although in the previous chapter Hauskeller rejected the consequentialist interpretation of meaningfulness that has led some authors to conclude that non-human animals and inanimate objects can have a meaningful existence, in this chapter he proceeds to show how the lives of non-human animals (but not inanimate objects) can indeed be meaningful, but for reasons that have nothing to do with those animals’ usefulness or extraordinary achievements. While most theories of meaning in life explicitly or implicitly deny that non-human animals can lead meaningful lives, he makes the case that both human and non-human lives are meaningful by default and that their meaningfulness springs mainly from their being lived in accordance with the nature of those who live them.