The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
voxprojectus
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

eating meat is not immoral

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/15/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 610 times Debate No: 56636
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

eating meat is not immoral

as long as considerations are given to how the meat was created, such as inhumane conditions of livestock being bad meat to eat.

our bodies are designed to eat meat. that is proven by the fact that we eat both meat and plants. and, our canine teeth shows that we are designed to eat meat.

so how can it truly be called immoral to eat meat?
voxprojectus

Con

My thanks to Dairygirl for posting this debate.

The reality is this: I eat meat, but for a number of different considerations I am not proud that I do so.

1. Humans are omnivorous, not true carnivores.

2. Humans moreso than any other animal have true choice about what we eat, from our ability to shape the environment to support any plant or animal life, to our knowledge of nutrition that has allowed to isolate what components truly make up a healthy diet, we have less need to eat meat than any other omnivore or carnivore on the planet. To neglect this true choice is indisputably immoral.

3. Meat is wasteful. The amount of crop land it takes to feed a herd of cattle is heinous compared to how that land could be used to grow grains that would feed many more people. Even growing protein-rich crops like Tofu, Quinoia, and Saytan yields enough food to feed more people way longer.

4. Meat is self-destructive. While in very small quantities, meat can be healthy, meat has a high potential to raise cholesterol and contribute to obesity. The addictive nature of meat makes overindulgence in it to be more likely than many other foods.

5. Meat is hurtful. It is a basic reality that in order to eat meat we must harm other creatures. Even early man was not comfortable with this fact and constructed ritual to excuse or be forgiven for the act of taking life to sustain their own. Modern man no longer needs meat to lead healthy, long lives, and thus needn't burden himself with the guilt and moral discomfort for any reason than the sheer pleasure of eating meat. Harming others for ones own pleasure is the definition of immorality.

For all these reasons, I urge readers to vote CON.

Over to you, PRO!
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

so can we agree that maybe eating too much meat is not a good idea? that doesn't mean i concede, just that i am accommodating. and curious how far you take the 'we don't need to eat it as much' argument.

there are always more efficient methods of producing food, does that mean we should always focus on those? even within the vegetarian community, there are more and less efficient food sources. which source of food we choose can only be considered wrong by a matter of degree, not inherently. again i think all we could conclude is we shouldn't focus too much on the inefficient stuff, but can't say eating meat is immoral based on this.

eating too much meat is bad for you. in moderation it is not bad for you, and in fact is surely good for you. that is why we are designed to eat it.

while hurting animals become an issue in terms of excessively hurting them, we are designed by nature to kill and eat animals. this requires the animals to be hurt. it would make more sense then to not use this reason to call eating meat immoral.
voxprojectus

Con

I will fully concede the point that while we may be evolutionarily driven to eat more meat than we should, that yes, it is technically possible we could eat healthier amounts of meat, and thus I will no longer pursue point 4.

I will not however, give your second rebuttal as much credence. While it may not be strictly immoral to use *some* land inefficiently to produce what are essentially luxury foods, there is not in place currently any moral way to do so. As the world stands, wealthy countries like mine (the US) produce many many times more meat than underdeveloped nations. Every hamburger I eat represent literally dozens of meals people who are starving elsewhere could be eating. The amount of Methane we produce in raising cattle is globally destructive. The closer I am bringing grazing land to being unfarmable for decades is another global impact. No, we don't have to use land for the *most* efficient crops, but meat is massively destructive environmentally and SO imbalanced against other crops in terms of nutritional yield (you have to literally expend/waste food to even get meat) there really isn't any defense or justification for it morally.

To your hurting rebuttal, I again state what I stated about choice: It is the nature of animals (which we are one of) to hurt and kill to eat meat. The difference between us and those other animals is that WE have a choice about it, a choice we could exercise for the better, yet a choice we ignore because YUM MEAT IS TASTY!

Humans have risen above their base instincts in acknowledging that certain things such as violence, cannibalism, greed and many other behaviors while natural, are not moral, eating meat should be one of these things.

Therefore, while conceding my fourth argument, I have defended the other two you have chosen to address, and extend all the others.

Over to you!
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con hasn't shown that it is inherently immoral to eat meat. at best he has given some examples of situatins here it is immoral.

if i am growing a cow on a farm, there's no serious way i could be considdred to be hindering third world people from the meals they could be eating. supporting mega farms and a mega meat industry might be viewed as bad, you could argue, but to grow local or eat meat in ways that are eco friendly, could not be considered bad.

con lumps eatin meat with things like violence, cannibalism etc. the problem is that those are not things we do by design of our very body etc. they are things that can be done, sure. but it's written in our body, by virtue of us being omnivores, by us having those cannine teeth etc. that we are meat eaters. we have a choice in these, and they are wrong. we have a choice with meat, but that is not necessarily wrong.
voxprojectus

Con

This is the final round, so I'll try to keep this more of a summary than anything else.



con hasn't shown that it is inherently immoral to eat meat. at best he has given some examples of situatins here it is immoral.

I have not given situations, but REALITIES of what meat-eating's end result is. Environmental destruction, pain and suffering to the animals themselves, and that where a choice exists whether or not to indulge in the consumption of meat, it is clearly more moral not to indulge.

if i am growing a cow on a farm, there's no serious way i could be considdred to be hindering third world people from the meals they could be eating. supporting mega farms and a mega meat industry might be viewed as bad, you could argue, but to grow local or eat meat in ways that are eco friendly, could not be considered bad.

I do not dispute that there are more moral ways to grow and consume meat than others, but it is almost ALWAYS a less moral choice than not eating it at all. Perhaps, if I were to really stretch, I could find an isolated case or two where meat were at least the lesser of available evils (someone with a rare disease who can't process plant protein, place where in limited cases only meat is available,) but the issue with those scenarios is that the element of choice has been removed. So long as eating meat is a choice, as it is for the vast majority of us, it is the less moral choice. Therefore, eating meat is Immoral.


con lumps eatin meat with things like violence, cannibalism etc. the problem is that those are not things we do by design of our very body etc. they are things that can be done, sure. but it's written in our body, by virtue of us being omnivores, by us having those cannine teeth etc. that we are meat eaters. we have a choice in these, and they are wrong. we have a choice with meat, but that is not necessarily wrong.

I would argue that we are very well built to commit acts of violence, from our ability to bite painfully (again, the canines) to our advanced brains that allow us to develop such advanced methods of killing. What is "natural" is rarely a good argument for what is moral, and there is no finer example of this dichotemy than in the consumption of meat.

In conclusion,

P1: Eating meat, for humans, is a choice.
P2: Eating meat carries with it many immoral burdens, from the neccesity of inflicting harm on other living things to the unsustainability it represents.

It is thus resolved that to eat meat is Immoral.

Best of luck to Dairygirl in the voting, I look forward to reading comments.

(and off the record:) if I should lose, I will enact my revenge by eating Dairygirl, who is meat, and therefore has proven it is moral for me to do so.

Thanks for reading!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
dairygirl4u2cvoxprojectusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution pose a problem because of the word 'immoral'. The debate more so dwindles into Health benefits and consequences of eating meat rather than establishing the 'immoral' part of the argument. If I side with the resolution, Pro would win, If I am to ignore the resolution, Con wins the argument as his defense was more sound on realities. Both win based on different perspectives. I'm not willing to take either side of the river, so this is a tie.