The Instigator
VeganVibes
Con (against)
The Contender
DrAnomaly
Pro (for)

Is it Ethical to Murder Animals Unnecessarily When Alternatives are Easily Accessible

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
VeganVibes has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 192 times Debate No: 106231
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

VeganVibes

Con

Round 1 will be used for opening statements.
Round 2 will be used for refuting and responding to opposing opening statements.
Round 3 will be used for final/closing statements.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

I hold the position that it is unethical to murder animals unnecessarily when alternatives are easily accessible. [1] It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. This fact proves we do not need the nutrition that comes with animals and their byproducts, therefore we can eat an animal free diet and thrive on it. We do not need to consume animals for health.

Slaughtering animals solely because people enjoy the taste of meat is argued by some to be wrong and morally unjustifiable.
If we do not need animals for good health, why do we condemn billions of animals to a life of cruelty, suffering, enslavement, torture, murder and mutilation?

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
DrAnomaly

Pro

I would agree that a vegetarian diet can be quite healthy, however this was a question of ethics and morality. Not of healthiness.

"If we do not need animals for good health, why do we condemn billions of animals to a life of cruelty, suffering, enslavement, torture, murder and mutilation?" - Because why not? You've made the posit that it is morally unjustifiable to consume animals when other alternatives are available, but why? You have the burden of proof, I am holding the null hypothesis.

Why is it morally wrong to do this to an animal?
Debate Round No. 1
VeganVibes

Con

I was simply pointing out we do not need animals for health, therefore we should be leaving them off the menu entirely. I believe you hold the burden of proof when you commit an arguably immoral act without justification. Please establish that moral devaluation requires justification. People who would argue against this point could not argue against something like the Holocaust, as a Nazi could claim that he would't need to justify it.

It is morally wrong to condemn animals for a plethora of reasons. [1]One being that we break the Golden Rule. [2]Name a trait present in animals, which if present in humans, would justify the treatment proposed by omnivores if applied to a human. [3]If you believe in human rights, that we all have a fundamental baseline for the right to life, then I believe it would be logically inconsistent of you to not extend said rights to animals.
DrAnomaly

Pro

"It is morally wrong to condemn animals for a plethora of reasons. [1]One being that we break the Golden Rule." What is the golden rule and why shouldn't it be broken?

"[2]Name a trait present in animals, which if present in humans, would justify the treatment proposed by omnivores if applied to a human." Who said I thought that it wrong to kill a human?

"[3]If you believe in human rights, that we all have a fundamental baseline for the right to life, then I believe it would be logically inconsistent of you to not extend said rights to animals." Who said I believe in human rights?

I've made absolutely no claim, therefor hold absolutely no burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by buildingapologetics 2 weeks ago
buildingapologetics
Yes, it is absolutely amoral. It is really VeganVibes that must prove that it is immoral. You have the burden of proof, not DrAnomaly. You made the positive claim that it is immoral, and you need evidence.
Posted by canis 2 weeks ago
canis
Humans are the only species that creates ethical formulas. But seen over 100.000 years we act 100% like any other species..So the net result of ethics = 0.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 2 weeks ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Is it ethical to not spay or neuter your pets? To attempt to discuss ethics with a Society of irresponsible people, is time wasted! One can indeed ponder the good ole days, But to what end?

The World will go on in its course till it reaches the moment of its Tribulation, at which point ... (in accordance with the Word of God) 2/3rd of you shall die in a 7 year timespan, because of War, famine violence, pestilence. (Zechariah 13:8).

Revelation 12:1-2 are fulfilled , Matthew 25 The Parable of the Ten Virgins is in effect, we await the completion of the latter portion of verse 5, that shall occur at the appearance of Revelation 12:3
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.