The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Animal Ethics - Is eating animals wrong?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,168 times Debate No: 113698
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




I base my moral foundation on something similar to Sam Harris, which is the consideration of the well-being of conscious creatures. This includes humans and animals. But I'd also say it is impossible to accept these 3 moral pillars while simultaneously eating animals. And these 3 pillars are: Empathy, compassion and ethical consistency.

Empathy refers more generally to our ability to take the perspective of and feel the emotions of another living being. Compassion is when those feelings and thoughts include the desire to help. (Can be substituted for Altruism). Ethical Consistency is being logically consistent within a belief. Primarily regarding the consistency of the justification being used.

Does anyone here eat animals, while also adhering to the moral trifecta (Empathy, compassion and ethical consistency)? If so, I'd like to know how?


Acceptance: yes, I eat animals.

For purpose of feeding myself. Animals eat animals, would you consider it wrong for predators to eat prey, as the broader perspective? Or do you only pertain it to humans?
Debate Round No. 1


I do not think it is wrong for predators to eat prey, as most predators NEED to kill their prey to survive. We, as humans, do not NEED to kill animals to survive. We can maintain healthy lives on a plant based diet. So since we have an alternative (which does not cause the same pain and suffering that factory farming does), why wouldn't use that alternative? Since eating animals (for humans) is not a NEED.

To acknowledge your first justification of "For the purpose of feeding myself", let's deploy an ethical consistency push to your reasoning. And just to be clear, ethical consistency is important, because if you do not have consistent reasoning behind the justification you are using to commit an action, then your morality becomes arbitrary. In which, you'd have no grounds for judging what is right from wrong.

So this is how it works to deploy an ethically consistent position, specific to the justification you are using.

Subject A believes X based on Y.
Subject A (Dinis) believes eating animals is OK (X) for the purpose of feeding himself (Y)

Now for your position to be consistent, we would use your same justification of "for the purpose of feeding himself" in another context.

Subject B believes Z based on Y.
Subject B (Jerry) believes eating humans is OK (Z) for the purpose of feeding himself (Y)

In both scenarios, the justification (Y) is the same. One is being deployed to justify eating humans, while the other is being deployed to justify eating animals. Do you believe it is morally correct for Jerry to eat humans based on the justification 'for the purpose of feeding himself'? If not, you have an inconsistent position. To deploy ethical consistency, your justification for an action needs to work in other contexts, otherwise your justification can lead to absurdities.

And to further gain clarity, many people get confused in regards to what I mean by "morally correct". Here's a simple explanation for how I define these terms.

Morally Correct = You believe it is right.
Morally Incorrect = You believe it is wrong.

You believe it is morally correct to eat animals for the purpose of feeding yourself.
Do you also believe it is morally correct for Jerry to eat humans, for the purpose of feeding himself?


Then omnivores of the animal kingdom, bears, sloths, pigs, possums and various others, do not need to eat meat. For example, a bear (varying species) has a diet based 90 percent on plant matter, does that mean it should only survive on plants? No, possibly it eats to gain proteins unable to be gained from plants, they are a larger stature and require more energy, and are apex predators, meaning they have a greater choice.

It is possible for humans to survive off of plants only, but it is also possible to survive off of meat only, yet we require both for a balanced diet. If we were to only eat plants, various proteins would have to be synthesized in order for us to keep up with our body"s requirements. So, is there a benefit? Yes, various amino acids and proteins unable to be extracted from plants are extracted from meat, and the process to make up for that loss would be greater than just making animal farms.

Would you believe it is alright for a panther or tiger to eat a human being that happens to come across its path? How about various humans, it still needs to eat.
What justifies the consumption of plants over animals, they are both living organisms?

Animals eat their own kin, as humans, we are superior beings to understand that that is wrong. As well, NEED is subjective. Of course the first world population does not need to support itself on meat, but many poorer countries and people use meat as buffer to prevent famine and food shortages from occurring. Each case is subjective to whether it is right or wrong, and as humans, we should know context matters and there is not one solution
Debate Round No. 2


There is actually recent evidence (2017) of brown bears going vegetarian due to climate change, choosing berries over salmon. And my main argument was about NEED, which implies availability. If there is an alternative to eating meat, which can meet all your nutritional needs and causes less pain/suffering, why wouldn't you choose that option? The difference between bears and humans is the capacity for moral evaluation. They don't view the action of eating salmon as moral or immoral. They do it for their survival, and cannot evaluate their decisions on a deeper level like humans can. They also aren't factory farming salmon, placing them in unlivable conditions while torturing and slaughtering them. Bears eat what is available to them, and cannot evaluate their actions in a deep ethical way. Humans eat what is 'tasty' to them, and CAN evaluate their actions in a deep ethical way. Therefore, as humans, we have a higher responsibility for our actions than a bear does.

And if you want to talk about animals that are large in stature, we can. The largest land animal in the world, an Elephant, is vegetarian. And if you don't think that is scary or dangerous enough, how about a Hippo? Hippos are also vegetarian, and are very dangerous. Many Africans regard Hippos as the continent's most dangerous animal. And lastly, most people look at Gorillas as a large land animal who is also feared in the Animal Kingdom. Gorillas have a mainly vegetarian diet. I think some species of Gorilla eat termites and ants, but other species do not.

Saying we require both (meat and plants) for a balanced diet, is just scientifically false. You can do the research yourself, but I recently created a google doc, that showcases the most relevant research for plant-based diets. I will link that here:

If a tiger eats a human being that happens to come across its path, I don't see anything morally wrong about that. The tiger sees an intruder in its natural habitat, and we cannot communicate to the tiger that we are not here to harm it. The tiger sees everything as a threat to its territory, and therefore needs to protect it.

Plants do not have a nervous system to feel pain, nor do they have a brain to process any type of pain. Animals can feel pain, so this is an obvious difference between the two.

And yes, I agree that other places may not have the same resources or availability of the same products that we do. And there also may be a lack of education in other places as well. But ALL (100%) of the people I have talked to about this, have access to a computer. They also have access to a grocery store. And therefore, cannot justify why they eat meat, when they have all the available resources and research at their finger tips.

As a follow up, do you still hold to the justification of "for feeding myself" as a reasonable and valid position for why you eat animals? You never explained why one human eating another human is wrong? Why is it wrong for one human to eat another human? All you wrote was 'we are superior beings to understand that that is wrong'. That doesn't say anything about WHY it is wrong. Please clarify.


Okay, very well. I accept the fact that meat is not entirely needed to sustain a healthy person. As well, we humans CAN live off of plants only, so that goes to you.

But, the debate is whether or not it is right to eat meat. I still say yes.

About the animals and plants. You consider that since most plants do not have sentience (meaning respond back to the environment in significant manners) and can not feel pain, they are rightfully in place to be eaten. Whether they are alive or not.
So, it"s about feeling pain and suffering, Yes?

Very well, most animals do not hold sapience. Being able to decide on your own without having many chemical instincts dictate your decision.

Therefore, because animals hold a higher mind capability than plants, they are MORE important than plants. But, since Humans hold an EVEN higher mind capability than animals, that makes humans more important than animals and plants. (Of course, their still essential, but one has greater potential than the other.)

Therefore, the consumption of a human is far more unacceptable, since human potential outmatches by far any animal, such as the tiger. Therefore, it is wrong for the tiger to eat the human, since humans are of higher value.

Why is it wrong for a human to eat a human? We have a higher set of morality. We do not eat our own because we know it is wrong. Would you take the carcass of a family member and be able to eat it with no second thoughts? Just as a casual meal? Eat your brother, sister, why not a stranger.

We humans are not animals, we are of a higher mind capability. We know better than to eat ourselves. We view everyone sacred enough to provide funerals for the ones that die.

Yes, there are companies that abuse and torture the animals. But, we are not asking for that, it"s only the companies that do that to mass produce. And yes, there is high demand that leads directly to those farming methods, but the act of one does not reflect on many others.

So, it"s just us and the animal. Should we eat the animal even when we don"t need it? We can because we can enjoy them that way.
Animals only feel pain, but can not understand the concept of suffering. They know what can hurt them, but they don"t know why they hurt them, not at a human level.
Their primary existence is to exist and reproduce. We are suppose to exist and enjoy, give purpose to our lives.

Now, I"m a Christian, and in the Bible God permits us to eat animals as another means to enjoy life. What God finds valuable, is the purpose the animals give. He is content with their existence, and He is content with us eating animals. Of course, He does not condone violence or torment, that is a human error, but He lets us cut down trees to build houses, kill animals for defense and food, all is in purpose, and as long as we respect animals, it is well.

Basically, we are better than animals, and we have the choice to enjoy animals as another means of life. This does not mean that the animals has to suffer, as long as we do it right, such as in individual situations when your killing a chicken for a family dinner

Would you say animals are on the same level as humans?
The means do not always justify the ends.
Debate Round No. 3


It is about the capacity (sentience) to feel pain, as well as the life itself. If a life does not have the capacity to feel pain, we do not need to evaluate our moral actions toward it in the same way we would toward a life that does have the capacity for pain.

My argument never held value on sapience. It was specifically about sentience, the ability to feel pain and suffering. Sapience is about being wise or having wisdom, which is irrelevant to my argument for why we shouldn't cause needless harm to animals.

I would agree that humans have more value than animals, but the key point is the moral agency difference between the two. It is not wrong for a tiger to eat a human, because the tiger cannot evaluate moral decisions like we can. And the tiger would only kill the human if it felt threatened or felt it was necessary to do so. We, as humans, kill animals (cows/chickens/pigs) without feeling any threat towards us. And it is also not necessary, because we have plant-based alternatives. This is completely different than when a tiger feels threatened and needs to protect it's territory.

I am not advocating for cannibalism. I just wanted to know what you meant by "We are superior beings to understand that it is wrong". And I believe you have answered it by pointing to our "higher mind capability", which I partially agree with. I would also say that humans have a higher probability of making a positive change in the world, than an animal does. And just to clarify one point here, I don't see 'cannibalism' as something that is intrinsically wrong. For example, there are situations where I would not find anything wrong with cannibalism, such as eating a dead corpse. If that dead corpse had no ties to anyone that is currently living, I don't see what pain/harm could come from someone eating it. The pain that would come from eating someone's dead body, usually comes from an external source. Such as, a living loved one who does not want to experience someone else eating the body of the person they just lost. That can cause mental pain/suffering, and I would not advocate for that. But if no external pain was caused by eating a dead person's corpse, I don't see the harm in that. Although I would think it is rather disgusting, but that is more of an aesthetic preference (not necessarily because I believe it is wrong).

Saying 'we humans are not animals', is technically false. We all fall under same 'Kingdom' of 'Animalia'. This includes carnivores, herbivores, omnivores, detritivores, etc. Some species have higher levels of thought than others, but we are still part of the same animal kingdom.

Even if there is a small percentage of farms that do not abuse and/or torture the animals, they are still slaughtering them. The slaughter of the animals is also something I object to. These animals are not able to live out their natural lives, which we would never accept for ourselves. People talk about "humane slaughter" as if they have reached a moral high ground. What is "humane" about slaughtering something? If I took a random healthy 20 year old human, and killed them, would it matter how "humanely" I did it? Absolutely not. So if we wouldn't accept unnecessary slaughter in humans, why would we accept unnecessary slaughter in animals? And to clarify, unnecessary in the sense of us having alternatives to eating meat.

Saying you can cause harm to a living being because of enjoyment, even when not needed, displays a complete lack of empathy and compassion. You'd rather cause harm and suffering to a living being, who can experience pain in similar ways we do, than to find an alternative method for your "enjoyment"?

Animals can understand suffering. You seem to have not exposed yourself to the truth and reality of these factory farms, which leave the mother cows in distress as they watch their new born get ripped away from them. Just because the animal can't do anything to stop the human from causing them pain and distress, doesn't mean they don't understand suffering.

To say their primary existence is to exist and reproduce, is completely false. Pigs are smarter than you realize, as they have been recognized as a more intelligent species than dogs. And similar to dogs, pigs like to play, can be very social among other pigs and can tell which people are nice to them. If you recognize that a dog can enjoy life, and their primary existence isn't to just exist and reproduce, you would also need to grant the same enjoyment to other species. You can't try to justify your imposed harm by limiting the purpose of an animal you don't care to understand.

I had hoped you wouldn't go to God as your moral foundation, because I am very well versed in this area. Saying God does not condone violence is factually false.

Genesis 22:2 - Condones human sacrifice.
Exodus 12:29 - Condones death to the first born of humans and cattle.
Leviticus 9:3-4 - Condones animal sacrifice.
Leviticus 20:13 - Condones death to homosexuals.
2 Kings 2:23-24 - Condones death to 42 boys by sending bears to maul them.

And maybe my favorite verse, Exodus 21:20-21. The condoning of slave owners to beat their male or female slaves, as long as they don't die as a direct result.

There are hundreds of other violent and unjust passages I could point to in the bible, but that is not what this debate is about. This debate is about why it is justified for humans to eat animals when they do not need to. And if you want to point to God as your source for morality, I would initiate a consistency test for you.

Do you derive your morality from the mind of God? If so, I assume you would follow anything that God states is moral. So in the same way that Abraham (in Genesis 22:2) followed God's moral authority by allowing his Son to be a potential sacrifice, would you follow God's moral authority if He told you to rape someone? And do not state, "God would never condone rape", because many of the other things he has condoned in the bible are far worse than rape.

So to keep your ethical views logically consistent, would you follow God's moral authority if he told you to rape someone? If no, then clearly you have some other way of discerning right from wrong. If yes, then I think this debate is over. Because someone who builds a foundation of moral principles that can lead to condoning rape, holds a fundamentally absurd position. In which, if you think rape is justified, I can now understand why you would think killing animals needlessly is justified. You would have a moral system that adheres to a dictator, in which whatever that dictator states is moral, becomes moral. That is a flawed moral system, as I have clearly demonstrated by my example of condoning rape.


Reasonable argument.

You focus on the fact that since an animal suffers from torture, we ALL should not eat an animal. Again, I am not responsible nor do I condone the actions of an industrial farm that is catering to a broad group of people. Therefore, one does not represent the actions of everyone.

Again, sapience is relevant. You, whether you acknowledge or not, seem to compare an animal to a human.
Can Jerry eat a human?
What happens if I decide to humanly kill a person?
No, there is fine barrier between animals and humans. Whether you consider us "animals", we are not like animals. For me, cannibalism is completely wrong, the means do no justify the ends. There is no real need to eat a human, right. Even in the worst of situations, in the biblical sense, sinning against God to save yourself for a few more years would have you lose His favor and ultimately, infinite years of peace, if you would have followed His laws.
But that is a different topic.

Either is it technically or morally? technically, it"s not wrong since animals "suffering" is a chemical response. Humans suffering is technically a chemical response, but obviously, one has a deeper meaning. Again, difference in humans and animals. Difference in value of animals and humans.

I did not say enjoyment in the death of an animal. I say enjoyment in the purpose of the animal. It"s meat is tasty and we love animals for that too. What do you suppose an animal that lives it"s entire life will think. Animals don"t think or comprehend, they only act on instinct, they don"t enjoy the plants they eat, thank the deer they kill, truly appreciate that their kin is alive.
To understand, is far more than to know who cares for you, who hurts you, who is your owner. To understand is why they hurt, why they love you, how they love you. Yes, animals have a certain level of intelligence, but lack true understanding.

Now, it"s not a matter of correct, but a matter of it being okay. God does not say we HAVE to eat animals, He states we can eat them, as animals are here for our use (Hence pets, working in fields, eating). We don"t have to eat them, yes, but we can if we want to, so it is okay to eat animals. We can enjoy them that way.

Okay, pigs are smart. but again, do not hold understanding. We can enjoy their meat, and the purpose they serve for us. God finds pleasure in his creation, Humans, appreciating his other creation. That is why animals do not hold an understanding as us, because they were meant to be enjoyed by us and therefore can not enjoy back.
God hates those that are ungrateful, abuse, and lack empathy. Those who give thanks to
Him are granted permission to enjoy His fruits, such as animals and plants.

It is not always about NEED, and that is what separates us from animals even further.
Think if this. God created animals, they don"t understand morals, can"t give thanks, can appreciate.
We humans can, and God lets us eat animals, because we appreciate his creation. He wants us to enjoy what He has made because we can understand.

First off, God would not tell me rape anyone, He is not like that. God told Abraham to kill his son as a show of true loyalty, but God did not allow Abraham to do so in the end. Think, God can see the emotions, desires, and thoughts of everyone. He was seeing if Abraham would go through what was asked of him, and when God saw he would have, He told Abraham to stop.
You have to take into account God and his powers. He could have easily resurrected his son and kept His promise.

Genesis: what I said above. Never allowed anyone to perform or accepted human sacrifice before and afterwards, it"s meaning was far more than just killing a person.

Exodus: God sent Moses to the Egyptians. Warned them with 10 plagues, each worse than the other, to let his people, the Israelites, out of slavery. A brutal slavery at that. Yet they didn"t listen and suffered for their subordination.

Leviticus- The purpose the animal served was justified. Again, it is God"s creation and he is allowing humans to use animals as a show of repentance for their sins. The animals do not understand.

Leviticus- it is unnatural, against his laws, and proves no benefits. This was to all those that served him and worshipped him, God. The homosexuals performed this among God"s people and was unacceptable, let them be with the foreign nations.
Take into account, this was in the past. The New Testament still states that homosexuality is wrong, but now states we should not kill them. Remember, this was only in the case if there was one among the people who performed the act. You could repent in both case and be cleaned.

2 Kings: the people knew Elijah was the newly chosen prophet by God himself. At the time, everyone knew the prophets had God"s approval and were a representation of God"s reputation. Therefore, everyone knew that they should never mock his prophet, as it is blasphemy, one of the greatest sins against God, since it is an action of direct mockery against Him. The juveniles were supposed to have been taught by their parents that they should never mock a prophet, but obviously, the parents failed to do so and paid a heavy price. One thing is spinning against God, another is mocking Him. As well, the children weren"t immediately killed, they were given a chance, as Elijah didn"t look back instantly.

Summary, God permits eating animals as long as we appreciate it. He knows animals do not understand, but we do, therefore He enjoys it more when we enjoy the animals.
Debate Round No. 4


Just to first point out, you still haven't acknowledged where you derive your morality from. But it seems you derive your morality from the mind of God, in which you didn't answer my question. If God told you to rape someone (in the same way God told Abraham to sacrifice his son), would you do it? Only God knew the outcome of the human sacrifice, but Abraham DID NOT. In the mind of Abraham, it was in the character of his God, to demand a human sacrifice. And in my opinion, human sacrifice is worse than rape, because at least a rape victim has a chance to heal and live a possibly normal life. So again, would you rape someone if God told you to do it? If not, then it is clear that you do not derive your morality from God. I wish you would've answered this question in your reply (on Round 4), because then I could've pinpointed your moral foundation and pushed a consistency test to it. But now, since this is round 5, I do not have a chance to initiate a counter-argument to what your moral foundation is.

Starting from the top. You ARE responsible for, and indirectly condone, the actions of factory farms. This is simple supply and demand at work. You demand what the factory farm is supplying. You are paying for an animal to be killed, in the same way I could pay a Hitman to kill a human. Just because you or I didn't do the killing ourselves, doesn't mean we didn't contribute, and it doesn't mean we aren't responsible. If you stop buying animal products, you contribute to less animal harm. Simple as that.

I compare animals to humans at the most basic levels of being able to experience pain, joy and suffering. And just like with humans, we should not impose on the animal's well-being unnecessarily. In the same way you are saying 'there is no real need to eat a human', there is also 'no real need to eat an animal'. Both have completely healthy alternatives, in which are available to everyone I have talked to about this topic.

Enjoyment in the purpose, which leads to death, is the same thing. And saying it is "tasty" is not a valid justification, because you wouldn't accept that same reasoning from a cannibal who justifies his actions by saying "human flesh is tasty". So using the justification of "this is tasty, therefore I am justified in killing it", is flawed. (More inconsistency)

You're factually wrong in what you say about animals. Animals CAN think and comprehend basic facts about reality. They have problem skills. Pigs are said to be smarter than human 3-year olds, and definitely smarter than dogs. Animals can think, enjoy life, experience suffering, experience sadness and experience joy. To say "animals have a certain level of intelligence, but lack true understanding. Therefore, I am justified in killing them for my taste pleasure", is completely invalid. Some severely mentally handicapped humans have a certain level of intelligence, but lack true understanding; would it then be OK to kill them for food? Probably not, so your own beliefs contradict each other. (More inconsistency)

Back to, "Whatever God says or condones, is good". So again, if God condoned rape, would you be OK with raping someone? Probably not, so stop referring to God as being your moral authority, when it is clear you wouldn't be able to be consistent within your own ethical foundation of following whatever God condones.

Again, you're just factually wrong about what animals are capable of. Animals can give thanks and can appreciate. Most of these behaviors you can experience from your own dog at home. But as I said before, there are animals who are more intelligent than dogs, so this point is irrelevant.

Back to the God question again. You claim God told Abraham to kill his son as a show of true loyalty. What if God told you to rape someone as a show of true loyalty? If it is in God's character to condone killing, why wouldn't it be in his character to condone rape? I am pretty sure most people, including yourself, would agree that death is worse than rape. And if not, just ask yourself right now, would you rather be killed or be raped? I think the answer is obvious.

Genesis: You still haven't acknowledged the main lesson of this fable. Abraham believed that his God was capable of condoning human sacrifice, for an unnecessary reason. And instead of Abraham telling God, "No, I am not going to kill my son." (Which is what a good empathetic person would do), he just follows God's moral authority blindly, as a sign of blind loyalty.

Exodus: But why would a God kill the innocent first born, rather than kill Pharaoh himself? This is also completely immoral, as killing an innocent child for the crimes of the father is absurd.

Leviticus: Just because animals don't understand what is happening to them, doesn't justify killing them. I could take a severely mentally handicapped person into the woods, while holding a gun, and that person wouldn't know what is happening to them. Just because the person doesn't know what I am about to do, doesn't mean I am justified in killing them. This is a completely flawed justification, and an internally inconsistent one.

Leviticus: Saying homosexuality is unnatural, is also just factually false. There are many other species in the animal kingdom (dolphins, mallards, bonobos, sheep, elephants) that experience homosexuality. So clearly, it is a natural occurrence. But more importantly, homosexuality does not cause harm to anyone, yet God condoned killing for it? I am morally superior to a God that condones the murder of someone just for their sexual preference. That should have NEVER been a law, and anyone or any God who condoned it, is a completely immoral monster who lacks empathy and compassion. Also, where in the New Testament does it say that homosexuals shouldn't be killed? As far as I am concerned, Jesus came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. And part of that law included killing homosexuals.

2 Kings: If you truly believe that mocking or blasphemy deserves death by bears, you're more immoral than I thought. Also, plenty of people mock and blaspheme God in our present day, but he does nothing about it. You somehow look at God's character as "good" if he sends bears to maul children. Really? Again, I am not surprised you have no problem with killing animals for taste pleasure, when you also have no problem with children getting mauled for superfluous reasoning.

Lastly, you never responded to my slavery verse, but I'll give you a few more.

Leviticus 25:44-46 - Suggests how Israelites can utilize the full human resources of slaves
Exodus 21:4 - The children of slaves were born into slavery
Exodus 21:20-21: The condoning of slave owners to beat their male or female slaves, as long as they don't die as a direct result.
Exodus 21:7-11 - Female slaves were treated worse than male slaves. They could be sold by their fathers and enslaved for life.

Ephesians 6:5-8 - Slaves obey your masters.
1 Timothy 6:1-2 - Slaves should respect their masters.
Colossians 3:22 - Slaves, obey your earthly masters
Colossians 4:1 - Masters should respect their slaves.

It is VERY clear that the bible condones slavery. And Jesus is not opposed to slavery, as he also condones it. Nowhere in the bible does it say, "Stop owning humans as property. All slaves deserve to go free and live their life without bondage."

So again, if you derive your morality from the mind of God, you should be OK with slavery. Jesus/God never condemned slavery, but instead condoned it. God even put in place different rules for female slaves and male slaves. He also had different rules for Hebrew slaves and non-Hebrew slaves. If you are NOT okay with slavery, then you are clearly going against the mind of God/Jesus. But if you are okay with slavery, then I think this debate is over. A person who thinks slavery, human sacrifice, putting homosexuals to death, sending bears to maul children and killing a child for the crimes of the father, is morally bankrupt.


My morality is derived from the Bible. God"s word.

Yes, I did answer your question. God would not tell me to rape anyone. Simply, He would have no basis in it and does not approve of it.

There is context behind everything you assert, that you leave out to disprove my arguments.
Yes, God demanded that Abraham provide a human sacrifice, but He does not demand human sacrifices. An isolated case does not determine his long lasting demands. Rather, this case was a show of loyalty that Abraham was willing to give in order to obey the one that has given HIM everything. His son was given by God, he wouldn"t have been able to have a son if God had not used His Holy Spirit to give him one, so it was in God"s rightful place to take BACK Abraham"s son because it was He who gave, and it was Abraham who asked.

"But that"s horrible, give a gift and take it back?"

No, it"s not as simple as that. Abraham"s son was the physical embodiment of God"s promise to Abraham"s long line of descendants. Abraham had faith that God would keep his promise somehow and would sill be able to see his son in the future again, since reviving a person was no problem for God.

In this case, the error was focusing on your perspective and not taking into account the perspective of Abraham as a whole. It was he who was deciding.

Im using American cash, and circulating it throughout the economy. I pay taxes, and that taxes goes to the government, which uses the money to build armies and kill people. I have sinned since I shouldn"t be condoning war or murder.

Sometimes, just because we are part of something doesn"t mean we are responsible for what is happening. I can"t always expect that my products are to be made without corruption or shadey tactics, it"s impossible to avoid that.

Clearly, I don"t condone torture or abuse, and just because I buy from said company, I don"t share the same ideals.
Everyone can be linked to something horrible at a micro perspective, but it"s better to know the full context.
Human nature has never proven to be simple.

No. You are presenting with me an anomalous case. Obviously, we don"t kill the mentally handicapped because they are still humans.

God has promised us in the future that everyone would be with perfect health and mental states, never hungry or suffering.
This case of mental illnesses is something God will eliminate. Just because it happens doesn"t mean it"s normal, and I"m not saying that just because animals don"t understand, we can eat them. I"m saying animals can"t understand like humans can, because we understand far more.

Maybe I confused you. So I"ll summarize.

Animals can"t understand like humans. Animals, to a certain degree, understand what benefits them, and harms them. This comparison between animals and Humans was me restating how a Human is more valuable than an animal, not as a justification for killing them.
Please, acknowledge this.
Animals can not enjoy life the way we do. We grow old, and reflect on all the things we"ve done.
You stated how animals can enjoy life, how? They can of course show social interactions with fellow animals, but only to a degree. Even you stated, "basic facts about reality".
You failed to disprove how the level of Human understanding is far superior to that of animals.
Again, I am not using human understanding as a justification to killing them, only pointing out how much more important and greater human pontential is compared to that of animals.
Yes, a 3 year old, after 15 years, that 3 year old would have reached levels of intelligence, knowledge, and understanding that no animal will come close to ever reaching.

So, God has created us purposefully superior to that of animals.

Again, you are dictating actions of God, as if God would actually ask of rape. We have no right to say what He should do.

Personally, I feel death is better than rape. I find rape too humiliating for me. Now I"m not saying that most will choose death, I"m just saying I would choose death. Again, you assert an answer without having enough background knowledge to know if it is the most plausible one.

Okay, for the final response:

Let"s take this into account. God created his son, Jesus, and his angels first( It"s in the Bible). Obviously, God already had the capability to creating incredibly superior beings. So, creating lowly beings like animals was done for a purpose. It was For them to be enjoyed by beings He later created, Humans. God, at first, in the garden of Eden, did not permit the consumption of the animals, only after Noah"s arc did he permit Humans, those willing to obey him, to eat the animals.
He permitted, not pushed to do.
As well, God owns every single creation, and He has the right to do what He wishes with it. That meant allowing Humans to eat animals was justifiable, NOT just because God said it was okay, it was because animals were here FOR humans as well.

Yes, animals can understand, to a point, their surroundings. But they can not understand the reasons or purpose. If an animal were to live for thousands of years, it will remain an animal, and act like an animal, never truly understating it"s meaning in life or what life is, but only knowing it"s alive and needs to stay alive. Therefore, they are organic beings God values but acknowledges the fact that animals will never know they had a creator or were "alive". And for that reason, even if they feel pain, the pain is a neuro response with no reaction farther than the warnings of body damage or danger. While humans think on the pain.
What God does is give purpose to everything, since animals can"t hold a purpose by themselves, He had allowed humans to give them a sort of purpose.

Genesis: Okay, take this into context. If Abraham would have chosen his son, He would disobeyed God and ultimately lost the promise He made with him.
You avoid my statement that God could easily revive Isaac, as well, He wasn"t eve. Going to allow Abraham to do it, it was a test to see if Abraham would actually choose his son over God.

While those with little faith think of the present, Abraham"s faith was not blind, but immensely great, for He knew God will always keep His promise and give him external peace. What you are stating is the present, while Abraham was thinking of the future.

Exodus: One, killing the pharaoh would only incite rage in the common Egyptians and most likely, make them commit a genocide against the Isrealites, something that they have done before with the firstborn of the Iasrealites.
Second, killing the parents would leave Egypt incredibly destroyed, who would take care of all the orphans, supposing both the parents are killed. Even if you kill one, they would still ask for retribution and most likely still suffer, since either one parent had to take care of the child while the other worked. And if you were to free the slaves with all this chaos, it would be much more despicable, since you"d be destroying the nation of Egypt, while taking the firstborn is a great sign of punishment. Also note, God still promises that many will be revived to have a chance to learn about Him, this can include these children.

Leviticus: You seem to view your own viewpoint over the direct permissions of God. Obviously, God allowed for his creations to be used in this manner because the animals actually don"t even know they are "living", not as humans do. Second, mentally handicapped is an anomaly.

Leviticus: Just because animals do things doesn"t mean it"s right for us to do it, such as cannibalism, incest, killing the cubs just because your the new leader. Somethings like that. Also, no, those occurrences of homosexuality is usually heat the animal is experiencing. For example, a Dog may try to have sex with another male dog, a shoe, a pillow, my leg, but that does not mean they ARE any of the above preferences.
Two, the topic of sexual preferences has gone overboard in today"s society, and obviously, it"s causing a lot of harm and chaos. As well, it is against God"s will and if God deems it wrong, we should know that He never intended homosexuality to even become a thing, it only became a thing because of imperfection, meaning our sexual preferences become tainted.
No, God says His people should not kill, but God will still kill all those opposed to Him in the end.

2 kings: Really, I"ve reworded my answer for "taste pleasures". It was a casual example, not my foundation for this argument. Second, God permits it and He obviously enjoys when we enjoy His creation, you seem to not like what He allows, something not uncommon.
Third, the children"s parents were warned, the children already knew who the man was, (sorry, I hadn"t stated that the children already knew that the man was God"s prophet) and they mocked him because they didn"t want a new prophet, since Elias had "died" not too long ago. They also knew the severe consequences of mocking God and they were warned even when mocking. How much more do you wish God to do? He had already did His best to teach, warm, and redirect, yet the children perished. So, God did this as a show that those serving Him and that start mocking His rulership will be severely punished.
The first to mock Him was the Devil, and he will answer as well.

Lastly, God will answer to all in the end, He is just being patient for those that are seeking Him.

Obviously, it"s not a shallow illustration.

Do not confuse South American Slavery with the slavery of biblical times. They are very, very different.

Being a slave was even done on purpose by many, due to poverty or difficulties. Usually, being a slave was better, since there are verses detailing what a slave should do if they wished to be their masters slave forever, a choice made by the slave themselves after a 7 year servitude.

Many of the Old Testament verses deal with actually giving more rights to slave. The one or woman states rights that prevent a female slave from being abused by her master, in case he marries another.

Every New Testament verse you present is relating to all those who wish to serve God. It is being a symbolic slave to God, meaning we would give our most energy into the service of God, such as preaching, reading the Bible, keeping his commandments. So, it"s not talking about literal slavery.

The reason why slavery is looked at so badly is because it was HUMANS who turned it into a horrible thing. All those that didn"t worship God started practicing it and then abusing it, and after God"s nation didn"t serve Him faithfully, they started to abuse slavery, and not follow His rules. Therefore, God left the Isrealites.

You have to take context into account. You have to stop cherry picking verses, isolating them, or taking them too literal, that is why you see it so horrible because your only looking at the powerful words, such as mauling or death, but don"t take into account the story or context.
Am I okay with slavery, not now, since it is horribly abused thing by humans. Before, it was good
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
If chatterbears is this animal rights activist, then why would he answer con to "Animal Ethics - Is eating animals wrong?"
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
@Everyone. It might be worth starting a forum thread for all of this.
Posted by ignoranus 3 years ago
Why does it matter whether eating animals is morally inconsistent? How do we actually benefit from not consuming animals? For some, having a conscience is enough to abstain, but clearly not for others.

It's different with humans because there are ramifications on an individual level.

Also, couldn't you argue that it's ethically preferable to consume and quickly kill a wild animal that will most likely suffer a gruesome death? I'd be curious how common it is for an animal to actually die to their maximum living capacity. I'd wager the percentage is small.

And again, you can't use the same justification with humans as they possess rational thought. You're therefore depriving them of their desires, one of course which may be to live. Animal's don't have that.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
Animal Ethics - Is eating animals wrong? Nothing is "wrong" if you do not think about it.. Everything can be wrong if you think about it..And visa versa..
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
I eat animals, I know it's wrong, but I don't care. I'm not sure we're able to justify killing animals, especially something such as pigs which are more intelligent than dogs.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't feel Pro was ever quite able to define 'what' is the important differential between animals and humans. His argument it appeared to me stated more that it was so natural to treat humans as humans and animals as animals it needed no justification. I thought Pros argument about taxes was a bit interesting, but feel it was too late in the last round and offered Con no chance at rebuttal. I'm going to ignore all the religious talk. Not that I'm biased one way or the other, I just don't feel it matters for the core of the debate. If anyone Pro, Con, or audience finds my voting logic flawed, let me know and I'll try to improve next time.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.