The Instigator
shortkid64
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
cpharris21
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Animals should have the right to life. (veganism)

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: 11/28/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,753 times Debate No: 119206
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (28)
Votes (0)

 

shortkid64

Pro

Animals are of moral value since humans are of moral value and there is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would deem ourselves without moral value.
if animals have moral value then there is no justification to needlessly slaughter them since there is no trait unique to animals that would justify a difference in reasoning their slaughter with the slaughter of humans. Note I am not stating humans and animals have the same moral value, I am saying with moral value since there must justification behind moral degradation and since animals don't possess any trait that would deem it ok to kill them if a human also possessed it there must therefore be no difference in the agreed upon right to life besides magnitude. The right to life I define is the right not to be slaughtered, Raped, Enslaved, Or trapped. I also state that the magnitude difference in the right to life among humans and animals is one that puts humans in a higher moral value than non-human animals. Also note just because one object has more moral value than another object that doesn't grant the first object total reign over the second one.

Moral value I define is the value placed on objects that protects them, Based on the value agreed, From actions that would be deemed immoral if it were to happen to an object such as a punch or killing an innocent person. We say it is wrong to perform the immoral action to the object that we assign moral value to.
cpharris21

Con

Hello,

You start by equating animals and humans with the same moral value and traits. Okay under that principle, If animals (which we are animals also) eat other animals, Being of equal moral value and also being animals, Then we should also, Right? You say we are of equal moral value, You should add equal nutritional value. Just ask the shark, Lion, Or any other animal that would eat you.

Besides moral value, Animals have nutritional value, Mostly protein, Including us as mammals, Though I'm not promoting cannibalism. Protein is required for human growth. Eating the flesh of animals is the most efficient way to eat that protein and also to produce a large enough amount of protein for the population.

You talk about needless slaughter, How else are you going to eat them, Alive? And have you ever watched an animal kill another animal for food, Its a fight and usually a blood bath. There is no moral high grown involved, One animal has something the other wants and that's flesh. The prey does not want to give it up that flesh so it's a fight. If the prey escapes, He lives to be prey another day, If not then it's a feast for the hunter. But as higher moral creatures as you stated us humans are (though we were equal earlier, ) we should be harvesting animals humanely and with as little suffering as possible, Which is the case most times.

Your definition of right to life that including rape is a little out there for a debate on veganism. I, And i think almost everyone, Agree that animals should not be raped, So I will give you that. As for animals being enslaved, Well yeah, We have to keep them some where, We call them pastures and pens.

You now change from moral equality and note that "because one object has more moral value than another object that doesn't grant the first object total reign over the second one" which is true. As humans our superior strength, Physical traits, And intelligence give us that reign and superiority. Vegans agree that we are superior because they say we should take care of and protect the animals, Making us superior over them. We just choose it eat certain ones because they are tasty.

Also we evolved to eat animals. Our eye teeth are for ripping flesh. Our molars are designed to chew that flesh up for easier digestion.

Lastly, What do most people do when you see a spider in your house, Kill it right? Or you remove it from where it wants to be and place it outside, Resetting it's search for another animal, A fly in this case, To EAT. But where is the line? Do you kill a spider or the fly because it's in your house? What about a bigger animal like a skunk or possum? Why do we draw a line about what we can and can't eat? Other cultures eat cats, Dogs, And horses all because they are protein.

What makes us different is our intelligence. That gives us reign over the animals of this earth. We should not abuse that by treating animals inhumanely. But it does not mean we should pass up on the best source of nutritional protein just because it hard be imagine eating something that was alive. Well it's hard to imagine until that smell raises from the grill.

Side not, For some reason it keeps capitalizing letters after commas and it changed a few other things too. I have corrected what it would allow me to correct but it is what it is.
Debate Round No. 1
shortkid64

Pro

Note I am not stating humans and animals have the same moral value, I am saying with moral value since there must justification behind moral degradation and since animals don't possess any trait that would deem it ok to kill them if a human also possessed it there must therefore be no difference in the agreed upon right to life besides magnitude.

The problem you made is that you didn't read my part about establishing animals are indeed lower in moral value. The reason I say they should have the right to life is because if you were that animal you wouldn't want to be murdered for food. Their ability to have a subjective reality like you or I makes it wrong to kill them for the same reason as a human, Not the magnitude, The reason it is wrong to murder humans is the same reason it is wrong to murder animals except it isn't as bad.

The burden of proof on you is to debunk my argument by naming a trait that is absent in animals which if absent in humans would make us deem ourselves value less. If you deny the premise then one could swap all traits of the animal to the human and it would still be wrong to kill one and not the other which in that case would be a logical contradiction.
cpharris21

Con

Our trait is we are higher on the food chain because of our intelligence. All carnivorous animals would eat you if you give them the chance or if they are hungry. How many times do we hear about the cat lady being found after being eaten by her own cats?

"since animals don't posses any trait that would deem it ok to kill them" is wrong. They have nutritional value. No one wants to be murdered for food, Including humans. And that's why we are careful around other animals, Ei. Bears and sharks, Because we're don't want to. But the nutritional value is there to justify eating them. With our current population we need to for the survival of the species.
Debate Round No. 2
shortkid64

Pro

Ok for some reason my response didn't appear. I'll type it out again.

My premise is that there is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would make us deem ourselves valueless in other words justify the needless slaughter. You say there is and that it is nutritional value and your superior intellect.
So if my premise is false and if your identified trait is such trait then this would follow: It is okay to kill and eat animals since they a. ) have nutritional value or b. ) they lack the intellect cpharris has. Just as true then must this be: It is okay to kill and eat any object that has a. ) nutritional value or b. ) inferior Intellect to cpharris. Any object includes humans. So if a human has the trait a. ) or b. ) would it be okay to kill and eat them. If not that is a contradiction. That would be special pleading and would make your argument completely invalid. My question is would it be okay to kill and eat the human who has the trait a. ) or b. )?
cpharris21

Con

cpharris21 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
shortkid64

Pro

If you don't answer the question I'll just assume that you don't know how to answer.
cpharris21

Con

Sorry had a family issue and had to leave town to take care of it.

"I hope he did not just run away like a chicken. " HAHAHAHA It's always the people winning the argument that resort to name calling. HAHAHA

SO let's make this real simple. You asked for a trait that made it alright to eat animals. That trait is nutrition.

Yes everything that I can kill, Harvest or grow, Or basically even digest is a source of food. Be it because I'm more intelligent than the prey, Stronger than the prey or just luckier that day. Now we are civilized creatures so we don't eat things like each other, Pets, Endangered species. At least not until we need to. It's okay for people to be vegan, For what ever reason they want.

But this point and this point alone will always limit any claim that we should never eat animals.

If you get hungry enough, You will eat anything to survive.

Now a person can choose not to eat animals that's their choice. But when it comes down to it, You would grill the last of an endangered species for something to eat to survive.
Debate Round No. 4
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dellomorgan123 3 years ago
dellomorgan123
This is such an interesting topic. (using chickens as an example)

1. What is better a chicken or deer been killed and eaten by an animal such as a lion or a human or is it both wrong? WIll a human inflict less pain?
2. Is killing an animal while inflicting little to no pain okay
3. Would you rather not eat any animal product or take action to help prevent people from killing endangered species and animals just for ivory such as elephants.
4. Would you put your dog or cat on a vegan diet? Hope not

Am I against animal cruelty? YES!
Am I vegan? NO
Do I want animals to suffer? NO
Do I love eating meat-based products? YES
Are humans or their bodies and teeth designed to eat meat? Yes
Is there anything wrong with someone being vegan? NO
Is there anything wrong with someone being a meat eater? Yes, If you're vegan. No, If you're not.

If science proved that you inflict pain on plants or tree would you stop eating it? Is starving to death an option or how long can you survive on expensive lab-made food.

On average Americans eat eight billion four hundred million chickens a year average 28 a year.
Only half of one percent of the USA population " or 1. 62 million of us " is vegan(google)
Might be more
Considering 2 million vegans you save 56 million chickens but the rest are still eaten by meat eaters.
8 billion vs 56 million is a very small number.

Today, There are an estimated 700, 000 African elephants and 40, 000 wild Asian elephants.
I would try to save these animals.
If a chicken on average can live about 8 years. How does this chicken contribute to society? The chicken not having a purpose does not justify killing it, But we still do.
The snake will eat the rat to survive or the snake dies.
one is the predator and one is the prey

There are so many ways to help animals! And that's by helping fellow humans.
If there was no money involved people would have no reason to abuse to animals. Animals are mistreated when it comes to mass produc
Posted by Nartnod7875 3 years ago
Nartnod7875
shortkid I see. The marginal-humans argument. You're saying if average, Adult humans have rights based on the fact that they have rationality, Then babies and the mentally retarded are not goven rights because they cannot use rational thinking. So that is the main premise that you're basing your entire argument on.
So, What are we left with when lookong at this argument? We can either one, Dismiss the idea that marginal humans like babies and the retarded have rights just like animals, Because they can't use reason or two, We include animals into the mix so that they have rights. The latter I think would be more problemtaic for everyone.
And another thing. I'd like to point out that their CAN be a rational and non arbitrary distinction between animals and marginal humans. Under NORMAL cognitive developmental circumstances, Marginal humans will/would be normal rational thinking beings. A baby is not yet rational, But it WILL be and has the potential to be. I don't think you would kill the baby because of that. Other more complicated marginal humans like the retarded and people in a coma are an exception because they are NOT under normal circumstances. And even so, Modern medicine and technology can find cures for these cases in the future, So it can also be said that the retarded and comatose ALSO have the potential to be rational thinking beings. This is not the case for animals, As they can't reach the same level of intellect as humans even in normal circumstances.

Ideologies that are or become idealistic are dangerous to both society and the broader scope of existence.
Posted by cpharris21 3 years ago
cpharris21
Sorry had a family issue and had to leave town to take care of it.

"I hope he did not just run away like a chicken. " HAHAHAHA It's always the people winning the argument that resort to name calling. HAHAHA

SO let's make this real simple. You asked for a trait that made it alright to eat animals. That trait is nutrition.

Yes everything that I can kill, Harvest or grow, Or basically even digest is a source of food. Be it because I'm more intelligent than the prey, Stronger than the prey or just luckier that day. Now we are civilized creatures so we don't eat things like each other, Pets, Endangered species. At least not until we need to. It's okay for people to be vegan, For what ever reason they want.

But this point and this point alone will always limit any claim that we should never eat animals.

If you get hungry enough, You will eat anything to survive.

Now a person can choose not to eat animals that's there choice. But when it comes down to it, You would grill a cat for something to eat to survive.
Posted by shortkid64 3 years ago
shortkid64
I hope he didn't just run away like a chicken.
Posted by shortkid64 3 years ago
shortkid64
1st. ) if having logical domain grants a right to life think by your logic mental retards have no right to life.

2nd. ) You commit an appeal to futility by saying the argument fails since it is in pursuit of a futile goal.
Posted by Nartnod7875 3 years ago
Nartnod7875
Right. If you choose to not meat for health reasons or because of preference in taste, That's fine. But for ethical reasons and for a cause? Forget about it. It's startling to see that vegans think they're making a difference in simply not eating meat. While they're eating vegan and boosting their ego, Animals are still being killed and exploited. I mean, If they really cared for them, They would have gone to great lengths like what people did for other humans. Look at the Civil War of WW2; people took up arms to save the lives of people that they have never even met and that's because we value human life.
Posted by Nartnod7875 3 years ago
Nartnod7875
shortkid how can animals be compatible with the concept of "rights"? After all, The idea of rights was coined through the rationality of humans. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, Two enlightenment figures, Held opposing views on "the state of nature" which is the condition where there is an absence of government. Hobbes believed that when there is no government, Humans will behave in such a way that everything from everywhere is up for grabs, And that people can't take ownership of anything, Even their own life, Body, And fruits of labor. That means that if I killed you or stole from you, It's permissible because their is no prinicple of property, Rules, Or boundaries. That is, Essentially, What interactions berween animals are like. A tiger can kill a deer without any moral consequence because sich is rhe law of the jungle. Locke argued that even without government, Humans are still capable of establishing boundaries andbguidelines for themselves. They are able to do this on their own because humans have rationality. They can think logically. Animals cannot.
Posted by cpharris21 3 years ago
cpharris21
I agree. But go even smaller to the bacteria in your stomach that control your digestion.

Also i heard there is a study going on about the effects of none animal fats in the brain development of vegans. Brain development requires fat, So by limiting or deleting the consumption of natural fats (from animals) vs processed fats from plants and nuts making oils, Are vegans limiting or altering the development of their brains.

I personally don't care what people want to eat. One week a month i go vegan because it is a healthy diet, But not sure about it being a healthy for a substantial amount of time. But it becomes an issue when people try regulate what others eat.
Posted by Nartnod7875 3 years ago
Nartnod7875
Personally, I think that suffering of any creature caused by the endeavors of human civilization is inevitable.
There's this story I heard. A man decided that he no longer wanted to eat meat. So he started to cultivate his own vegetables for food. Shortly after, His garden gets overeun by small animals like mice and rabbits. They're eating everything and he has no other choice but to kill them. I know, This story is not very relevant since we can get vegetables from the market. But in order to grow so many vegetables, Farmers need to create a large area of land to fertilize, Don't they? And that means the destruction of the animals' food and habitat.
It's also proven that plants have the capacity to register pain so to say that you eat vegetables does jot mean you don't partake in a system that causes suffering.
Posted by cpharris21 3 years ago
cpharris21
Nartnod7875, Yes i know I changed the meaning about the rape, Was just having a little fun there.

Also, I agree animals should be treated respectfully. I have seen some of the things you are talking about first hand, That's why I don't eat at some restaurants or buy some products. I go out of my way to avoid companies that have bad histories of animal treatment. Animals should be treated humanely from birth until they reach the diner table. I would vote for stricter laws that regulate the treatment of animals.

Maybe we are slowly evolving past needing to depend on animals for food, But I'm still going to enjoy a good rare steak ever once in a while.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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