The Instigator
StronglyOnionatedPlatypus
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RapidCurrents
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Eating Plants is as Ethical As Eating Animals

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 237 times Debate No: 87691
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

StronglyOnionatedPlatypus

Pro

This is a debate as to whether or not the consumption of plants and plant products is more ethical than the consumption of animals and animal products. I will be debating Pro, meaning I am claiming both are equally ethical. We are debating under the assumption that all life is equal, and the treatment of the organisms should be taken into account.

Please be kind and reasonable. Cite sources.

Definitions:
Ethical- Being in accordance with the rules or standards of right conduct (morals)
consumption- the use of a resource that destroys or modifies said resource, especially for food/nutrition
Plant- an organism that is a member of the Plantae kingdom [1]
Animal- an organism that is a member of the kindom Animalia [2]

Round 1: acceptance
Round 2-3: Argument
Round 4: Rebuttal and closing statements

I look forward to debating this topic.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
RapidCurrents

Con

Thank you for hosting this debate! I am looking forward to it! Best of luck!
Debate Round No. 1
StronglyOnionatedPlatypus

Pro

Alright, I will now present my argument.

Both plants and animals are farmed and consumed extensively. They are both forced to grow in such ways that they are of most use to humans.

I would first like to prove how eating either one are both ethical. I assume that this is from a personal perspective, because it is the person who consumes, and we are debating the ethicality of consumption. In today's society, a person would first purchase the plant or animal product, then would prepare and consume it. In this case, the organism would already be dead, and to consume it would be to ensure it does not go to waste. Humans are animals, meaning they must consume other organisms or their products for sustenance. [1] It thus follows that the killing of other organisms for nutrition is necessary, and therefore not unethical because it is unavoidable. You have to get your nutrients from somewhere, and if that means another organism has to die, it is all we can do to try not to waste it's life.

On the treatment of the animals, the main argument against eating them, I will say this: shouldn't only those who mistreat the animals be held accountable? Going to the grocery store and picking up some ground beef is not the same as putting a bullet through a cow's head. Leaving the ground beef there only means some one else will eat it, or it will be tossed away. The farms have already gotten their money. I understand not wanting to support cruelty to animals, but are the plants treated any better? They are cut down, pulled up, "milked" for their juices, and ground up like the aforementioned beef. It is a necessary evil, because these methods allow humans to live together as communities. It is our natural state to eat plants and animals, they are both life, so why should one take precedence over the other? I ask you this: what makes an animal's life worth more than a plant's?

In conclusion, the consumption of animals and plants are both ethical and necessary.
RapidCurrents

Con

RapidCurrents forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
StronglyOnionatedPlatypus

Pro

Since you were unable to provide your argument for reasons I do not know, I will not use this round to make it fair in case you wish to still debate.
RapidCurrents

Con

RapidCurrents forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
StronglyOnionatedPlatypus

Pro

StronglyOnionatedPlatypus forfeited this round.
RapidCurrents

Con

RapidCurrents forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
You should also make the ethical model you are using clear. As phrased, you could reject your opponent's arguments by saying you won't follow their ethical model. If your ethical model is such that the desires of humans auto-trump the wellbeing of nonhumans, then the argument becomes a non-starter. If your ethical model is consequentialist and based on wellbeing, then you will have a hard time justifying the common methods of farming meat in countries like the United States.
Posted by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
The way this is posed is too simplistic. The consumption of the animals is not the objectionable part. The part to which people object is the process by which we obtain meat or animal products. In general, nobody will have an ethical objection to eating roadkill. The wicked practice of factory farming, however, is almost universally condemned. People object to the cruel conditions in which the animals are housed and the cruel way in which they are killed.
No votes have been placed for this debate.