The Instigator
Zak9
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Brooklyn1223
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

It is moral to use other creatures as resources.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Zak9
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,083 times Debate No: 19133
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Zak9

Con

Pro must justify using other earthlings as resources (i.e. clothing, food, entertainment, scientific testing).

First round will be acceptance. 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th rounds will be to make points and contradict those of your opponent.
Brooklyn1223

Pro

I accept the debate and i wish you luck, hope it will be a good one.
Debate Round No. 1
Zak9

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting.

It is immoral to use other creatures to we, humans, advantage. Using other earthlings violate the principle of equality.

Speciesism: Discrimination in favor of one species, usually the human species, over another, especially in the exploitation or mistreatment of animals by humans.

If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration.

Racists violate the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of one's own race when there is a clash between their race and the interests of another race.
Sexists violate the principle of equality by favoring the interests one one's own sex.
Similarly, specieists allow the interests of one's own species to override the greater interests of another's species. In each case, the pattern is identical. In all such cases, humans with power exploit those who lack power.

Undoubtedly, there are differences between racism and sexism vs. speciesism because humans and other earthlings are not the same in many respects. But the question of sameness wears another face. Granted, other animals do not have all the same desires we humans have. Granted, they do not comprehend everything we humans comprehend. Nevertheless, we and they do have many of the same desires and do comprehend some of the same things. The desire for food and water, shelter and companionship, freedom of movement and avoidance of pain, both humans and other animals share.

As for comprehension, like humans, many non-human animals not only live on earth but understand the world in which they live, otherwise they could not survive. So beneath the many differences there is sameness. Like us, these animals embody the mystery and wonder of consciousness. Like us, they are not only in the world but are also aware of it. Like us, they are psychological centers of life that is uniquely their own. In these fundamental respects, humans stand on all fours so-to-speak.

"As often as Herman witnessed the slaughter of animals and fish, he always had the same thought: In their behavior toward creatures, all men were Nazis. The smugness with which man could do with other species as he pleased exemplify the most extreme racist theories. The principle that might is right." - Isaac Bashevis Singer

The comparison to the Holocaust from speciesism is both intentional and obvious- One group of living beings anguishes beneath the hands of another. Though some will argue the suffering of animals cannot possibly compare with that of former Jews or slaves, there is in fact a parallel. And for the prisoners and victims of this mass murder and discrimination, their Holocaust is far from over.

In his book- "The Outermost House"- author Harry Beston wrote, " We need another and wiser, and perhaps more mystical concept of animals. Remote from universal nature...man in civilization serve as the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified, and the whole image in distortion. We patronize them for their incompleteness. For their tragic fate of having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein we err and greatly err. For the animal shall not me measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete. Gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained. Living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren. They are not underlings. They are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time. Fellow prisoners of the splendor and travail of the earth."

Humans do not have the moral right to use animals as food, clothing, entertainment, or testing because that would violate the principle of equality. If humans can survive without the suffering of other beings, than it is unjustified to use animals to our advantage.
Brooklyn1223

Pro

I'm really looking forward to this debate. I shall introduce my own arguments then review over my opponents.

Definitions: Moral: a just or right action. (merriam webster)

Without meat many people would starve and others would suffer deficiency diseases.
Hides fur and feathers are environmentally friendly, man made fibers are not.
Without animal research for new products and medicine many people will die or become ill.
Without zoos, circuses, and other performing animals people will lose their respect for wild creatures.

My arguments are in this quote and in this round i shall review each one and explain why it is moral for us to use animals for our benefits.

Without meat many people would starve and others would suffer deficiency diseases.
This statment is very true as i hope most people already know. Meat is a main source of food for humans and without it much of the worlds population would decrease dramatically and drastically. Alot of people respond to this saying we could live as vegetarians, but this is not true. For one, several vegetarians die annually because they don't have meat whether its the lack of proteins or there body simply can't handle it. In conclusion, without meat millions if not more people will die. I do see this being a moral point to use animals as meat.

Hides fur and feathers are environmentally friendly, man made fibers are not.
This is an obvious point, this is in realtion to our clothing the hides and fur of animals should go to a good use since we already put them down for meat so how is it not moral? For those who still believe it isn't moral i shall point out there hides and fur cause no harm to our enviorment while man made clothing does. If we only used man made fibers then it would destroy the enviorment cause harm for all species not just humans.

Without animal research for new products and medicine many people will die or become ill.
I believe this is where many people have problems with this issue and believe it is morally wrong to use animals for research, i disagree. How can we consider it moral to watch many if our own population die off when we could use a small portion of other species. Not only does this help save the human population but also there own we cannot come up with cures for animals aswell as ourselfes without them.

Without zoos, circuses, and other performing animals people will lose their respect for wild creatures.
This is another touchy point in this issue where i believe most people are mistaken. I would like to start off on this point by explaining these animals dont go through as much harm as people think they do. It's not to often that animals are abused or hurt is zoos,circuses,etc.... actually other than when performing these animals live rather pampered lives. That is not the full point though, if these animals weren't in entertainment many people would lose respect and care for the animals as they would see them as worthless.

Now to my opponent's arguments.

First i would like to address a statement my opponent made. '
If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration' i would have to disagree with this as if we stopped using animals for resources more humans and animals would suffer because of it so is it moral to save a few and kill many or the other way around?

I agree that we should maintain a form of equality between all species on earth but not in the way my opponent has used it. if one life is equal to another is 20 lifes equal to a thousand? No. at least not in moral speaking terms.
His case in all makes sence but not in a moral standard, we do not violate the principle of equality we enhance it. Therefor, there can only be a pro side for this topic. Thank you,
Debate Round No. 2
Zak9

Con

"Without meat many people would starve and others would suffer deficiency diseases.
This statment is very true as i hope most people already know. Meat is a main source of food for humans and without it much of the worlds population would decrease dramatically and drastically. Alot of people respond to this saying we could live as vegetarians, but this is not true. For one, several vegetarians die annually because they don't have meat whether its the lack of proteins or there body simply can't handle it. In conclusion, without meat millions if not more people will die. I do see this being a moral point to use animals as meat."

-Pro has brought up a topic which has nothing to do with morality- but health instead. Nonetheless, I will argue his point.

Animal products have been proven many times to hurt, not help, the human body. The animals you get your meat, milk, eggs, and otherwise from are pumped with fat hormones and other unhealthy artificial chemicals. You can easily receive all the nutrients needed to support your body if you are a vegan.
If the entire population of Earth was to stop eating meat, starvation would significantly decrease. This is because we could use the 2,500 gallons it takes to make just one pound of beef to grow crops and feed the hungry. No vegetarians or vegans have ever died because of a lack of meat. This information is entirely false and it has been undoubtedly made up.

"Hides fur and feathers are environmentally friendly, man made fibers are not.
This is an obvious point, this is in realtion to our clothing the hides and fur of animals should go to a good use since we already put them down for meat so how is it not moral? For those who still believe it isn't moral i shall point out there hides and fur cause no harm to our enviorment while man made clothing does. If we only used man made fibers then it would destroy the enviorment cause harm for all species not just humans."

-Once again, Pro has brought up an argument which has nothing to do with morality.

You have not given any reason for why hides, furs, and feathers are environmentally friendly, which they are not.

"Without animal research for new products and medicine many people will die or become ill.
I believe this is where many people have problems with this issue and believe it is morally wrong to use animals for research, i disagree. How can we consider it moral to watch many if our own population die off when we could use a small portion of other species. Not only does this help save the human population but also there own we cannot come up with cures for animals aswell as ourselfes without them."

- Simply because our race would have to suffer if we did not use non-human animals does not justify us using other creatures as test subjects. If turkeys were as intelligent as humans and wanted to develop a cure for a disease only found in turkeys, would we say it is OK to use we humans as test subjects? Of course not! So why is it OK for us to use other earthlings?

"Without zoos, circuses, and other performing animals people will lose their respect for wild creatures.
This is another touchy point in this issue where i believe most people are mistaken. I would like to start off on this point by explaining these animals dont go through as much harm as people think they do. It's not to often that animals are abused or hurt is zoos,circuses,etc.... actually other than when performing these animals live rather pampered lives. That is not the full point though, if these animals weren't in entertainment many people would lose respect and care for the animals as they would see them as worthless."

- Firstly, animals actually go through more harm and more pain than many think they do. Circus animals are hit, slapped, whipped etc. when they do not do as told. These animals live the very opposite of pampered lives.

If a human loses respect for other creatures simply because it does not ever get to see it enclosed in an area smaller than their bedroom or seeing a creature perform a magnificent trick at a circus, it is the human's problem. Why should an innocent being suffer because a child wants to see it do a trick after much pain and suffering?

"i would have to disagree with this as if we stopped using animals for resources more humans and animals would suffer because of it so is it moral to save a few and kill many or the other way around?"

Pro has posted a very false argument. No humans or other creatures would suffer if we stopped using them as resources.

"I agree that we should maintain a form of equality between all species on earth but not in the way my opponent has used it. if one life is equal to another is 20 lifes equal to a thousand? No. at least not in moral speaking terms.
His case in all makes sence but not in a moral standard, we do not violate the principle of equality we enhance it. Therefor, there can only be a pro side for this topic. Thank you,"

-I never said that one life is equal to twenty. You are arguing on things that I never said.

You have stated that by using animals as resources we enhance the principle of equality. How ridiculous! How does using other earthlings possible enhance the principle of equality in any way, shape, or form?

Pro has not posted any firm argument for why it can be morally justified to use animals as resources.

Vote Con.
Brooklyn1223

Pro

Brooklyn1223 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Zak9

Con

Zak9 forfeited this round.
Brooklyn1223

Pro

Brooklyn1223 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Zak9

Con

I forfeited the last round because my opponent had done the same and only found it fair.

But, yet again, my opponent has forfeited.

Arguements extended.
Brooklyn1223

Pro

Brooklyn1223 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
undefined ethical code FTW!!!
Posted by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
Just because we've evolved to do X doesn't necessarily mean X is the right thing to do. You're jumping the gap from 'we are designed to do X' to 'it is morally right to do X' without justification.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
(in addition to plants)
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
The Pro position violates the laws of nature and the food chain. As omnivorous beings, we are SUPPOSED to eat animals.
Posted by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
Dammit, it's a moral obligation to eat animals. I hate animals.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
If you switch this around to "it is immoral to use other creatures as reasourses" where you take PRO, I'll debate you, lol.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
I agree with zak9. I'm going elk hunting tommorow, and isnt moral to eat it. yes it is.
Posted by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
only immoral acts require justification. Moral acts are good of themselves. eg..I fed a hungry man. I exercise.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
Zak9Brooklyn1223Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side had particularly compelling arguments, Con's being almost entirely an appeal to emotion and Pro's having no clear base for arguing morality. Pro having completely forfeited this debate after the second round, however, arguments and conduct go to Con. Both sides need to learn to cite their sources.