The Instigator
squeakly54n6
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Debaticus
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Eating animals is immoral and wrong in 1st world countries

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 2/20/2019 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 665 times Debate No: 120410
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

squeakly54n6

Pro

Con can go first, Explain to me why in a modern 1st world country like the US, Canada, Or Europe, That we have to eat meat to survive when we have an established irrigation system.
Debaticus

Con

Eating animals isn't a necessity, But it is a luxury we should be grateful for.
My opponent's argument is that if you live in a first world country such as the US, With an established irrigation system and a livestock economy currently worth billions, You should avoid eating meat because it is immoral.

This is wrong on many accounts, As it is perfectly moral to eat meat, Even if you are in a first world country and have other options.

Having an established irrigation system does not make eating meat unnecessary. It makes it a luxury. We get the ability to choose individually whether we want to eat meat or not.
There are two sides to a kind of argument like this. One is a god-worshipping side, And the other is a science believing side. I do not know my opponent's side, So I will present my argument for both.
On the worshipping side, It is fairly simple. God gave us fire, Which was able to be used for cooking meat and making it safe to eat. He gave us the means to prosper and gave animals the ability to be domesticated. If he didn't want animals to be eaten, He would have made animals cuter, Smarter, And harder to eat.

On the science side, It is even more obvious. Humans bred the animals we consume specifically for one purpose, To safely and healthily be consumed. We have required animals to survive up until the last 3 centuries or so. For America it has been within the last century. Animals such as cows, Pigs, And chicken are made to be eaten or feed humans in another way. Cows came from bigger, Hairier cows. Pigs came from wild boars, Etc. The only way I would object to eating animals is if they proved sentience or at least sapience. Pigs may be smart, But they do not use tools or have an established language. The animals that do use tools in first world countries are generally left alone or are hard to eat. Apes aren't eaten much, Crows are hardly touched.

There is also the case of wild animals. While humans have bred many animals to be eaten, Wild animals have not been bred in such a way. Wild animals have a degree of freedom that should give them exemption from being eaten in first world countries. But, Wild animals do not count for all the meat we eat. I have never eaten a wild animal on purpose, But I have meat whenever I want.

The ability to choose whether to eat meat or not is a great luxury. You don't need to if you don't want to, But you shouldn't be forced to avoid it since some people believe it is wrong. It is not immoral to eat domesticated and bred meat anywhere, Much less third world countries where you need to in order to survive. If the animals providing meat are not abused, Kept free range, And given basic luxuries, Then eating them is a basic luxury.

So, In first world countries, It is completely justified and moral to eat meat. The animals are not sentient and have been bred to be eaten. If they are domestic and free range, As well as humanely killed and slaughtered, It is perfectly fine to eat them.
Debate Round No. 1
squeakly54n6

Pro

" It makes it a luxury. We get the ability to choose individually whether we want to eat meat or not. "

- Just because we have a luxury to eat something doesn't make it right. In first world countries we have the luxury of being able to waste food and water, But does that make it moral to waste resources?

" One is a god-worshiping side, And the other is a science believing side. I do not know my opponent's side, So I will present my argument for both. "

- I am not religious so I am going to ignore my opponents god worshiping side.

" The only way I would object to eating animals is if they proved sentience or at least sapience. "

- Actually animals have proven to be sentient on various studies conducted through out the years.
SOURCES, Https://www. Voiceless. Org. Au/hot-topics/animal-sentience
https://www. Barnsanctuary. Org/animal-welfare/farm-animals-sentient/

" If the animals providing meat are not abused, Kept free range, And given basic luxuries, Then eating them is a basic luxury. "

- Ok so than would you be fine with breeding and eating humans if you give them, Free range, And basic luxuries? Surely you wouldn't suggest that.
Debaticus

Con

To begin, It is a lot easier that my opponent is not religious and I do not have to present an argument I don't believe in for a side I do.
Next, "But does that make it moral to waste resources? " it is not moral to waste resources, But livestock is a resource. If everyone were to turn from livestock and instead focus on plant life, The livestock present would be wasted greatly.

" would you be fine with breeding and eating humans"
I am not fine with eating humans, Because that is cannibalism. But cows aren't humans. It is morally wrong to feed a pig bacon, But to feed a pig a different species would be more or less alright because pigs are omnivores just like us.

From one of the links you have posted I found this.
"Today, Millions of animals are denied the freedom to experience these basic pleasures because they are confined in cages, Kept in isolation or crowded in sheds without access to a natural environment. "
This is exactly what I meant by free range and basic luxuries. Animals are sapient, But they do not have the levels of intelligence of cavemen, The earliest men. Animals on farms do not have the capacity to use tools. There have been no cases of primitive animal art or anything similar to cave paintings. Nothing has been demonstrated beyond basic memory in farm animals. Lastly, There have been no recorded cases of animals on a farm taking revenge or inferring anything. This is why animals are lower than us even though they are living beings.

Adult humans are on the top of the food chain. We can defeat any animal we want if we put our minds to it. No animal preys directly on us for food. We earned our rights to eat the animals we have clawed our way past to survive. Now we are on the top, Some of the predators that used to control the populations of these animals have died off or changed targets. If the ~300 million Americans joined the ~8 million Americans in not eating meat, Then what would happen to the meat? Would it be kept alive? If it was kept alive, There would be 40 million cows, 72 million pigs and 8 BILLION chickens. If all of those animals were suddenly in competition for the grain industry for their entire lives instead of until they die of natural causes. The irrigation systems we have would not support all first world humans, Plus the animals we stopped eating. Animal populations would spike, Starvation rates would spike, And after only a few deaths from starvation, Humans would have to go back to eating animals to survive.

Another option would be to purge the animals. Which would be much, Much less humane than eating them because their remains would be wasted anyways. First world countries can support vegetarians, But not a 100% ratio plus animals.

The in-between would be to continue killing animals at the same rate, But not eating them. This would probably be the most pointless of them all, Because the inhumane part of eating meat is the killing of the animals, And If meat wasn't wanted, The animals would either continue to die or cause starvation of humans. Not to mention that methane from cow flatulence partially contributes to global warming.

To conclude, Most humans eating meat, Especially in first world countries, Is completely moral. The population of animals is the exact amount to satisfy the needs of the people, While still allowing vegetarians to avoid eating meat, And all without great amounts of waste. It is moral for animals to be eaten, And to change in either direction would be a disaster scenario.
Debate Round No. 2
squeakly54n6

Pro

" But livestock is a resource. If everyone were to turn from livestock and instead focus on plant life, The livestock present would be wasted greatly. "

- This is true however this is a small price to pay for the trillions of animal lives we would save by not eating meat. This isn't even including the amount of resources we would save if just America went vegetarian. For just one day America would save 100 billion gallons of water, 1. 5 billion pounds of crops that we would otherwise feed to livestock, 70 million gallons of gas, 33 tons of antibiotics, 1. 2 million tons of co2, And 3 million acres of land. This is just America going vegetarian for one day, Imagine how many resources the world would save if countries like Canada or the UK went vegetarian. The 1. 5 billion pounds of crops can essentially be used to stop world hunger, The reduction in co2 emissions would reduce global warming, And the 33 tons of antibiotics can instead be used to help the sick in the world.

" Because that is cannibalism. But cows aren't humans. "

- So if hypothetically there was an alien species that had the same moral values as us, Was intelligent, And had sentience, You would justify slaughtering them just because their a different species than us?

" But they do not have the levels of intelligence of cavemen, The earliest men. Animals on farms do not have the capacity to use tools. "

- So would you be fine with the genocide of mentally unstable people because their not intelligent? Or for that matter lower IQ individuals?

" Much less humane than eating them because their remains would be wasted anyways. First world countries can support vegetarians, But not a 100% ratio plus animals. "

- You forget however that this debate is about whether or not it's ok to eat them or not, Not if its ok to use them to make eggs, Milk, Or wool.

To conclude, America simply going vegetarian would save our planet billions of useful resource such as water, Gas, And food, And is overall the more ethical option as animals have sentience and have a right to life just like humans have a right to life.

SOURCES, Https://drjoelkahn. Com. . . .
https://sentientmedia. Org. . .
Debaticus

Con

Pro has failed refute my primary concern, Where I stated that there would have to be a choice of what to do with the animals not eaten, Which provides evidence it is a solid point. He also said: " trillions of animal lives we would save. . . " which provides one point, And then directly contradicted himself saying: "1. 5 billion pounds of crops that we would otherwise feed to livestock". My opponent believes that by not killing the livestock that we planned on killing, It will somehow reduce the fact that they still need to eat to survive. The only thing that might be saved is gas, Which is used when transporting living livestock as well as prepared to eat food. A rough estimate would mean that saving all livestock from being eaten would be 35 million gallons of gas saved. But that would quickly be counteracted by the amount of gas used to move around massive populations of animals and massive amounts of extra food and water to the cattle.

Next, My opponent asked me "
- So if hypothetically there was an alien species that had the same moral values as us, Was intelligent, And had sentience, You would justify slaughtering them just because their a different species than us? "
I wouldn't justify slaughtering them because of multiple reasons I have previously stated. One, If they were spacefairing, It would be basically a different, Screwed up version of cannibalism because they would be the same basic intelligence as us.
Another reason is, If they are not spacefairing or are getting around to our version of the 1800s-2000s, It would be similar to hunting wild animals, Because they haven't been *domesticated for hundreds of years for the sole purpose of eating and using*
Lastly, If we managed to communicate with them, And they had the same moral values as us, They would probably immediately be considered equals by everyone who was not racist. So, It wouldn't be moral to eat an alien species such as you described, But it is to eat the species bred for eating on earth.

"So would you be fine with the genocide of mentally unstable people because their not intelligent? Or for that matter lower IQ individuals? "
Again, Cannibalism. Also again, We didn't breed mentally unstable people to be eaten.

"You forget however that this debate is about whether or not it's ok to eat them or not, Not if its ok to use them to make eggs, Milk, Or wool. "
Your point here confuses me. In the sentence of mine that you quoted, I made no mention of milk, Eggs, Or wool, While I did finish my point by bringing it back to why it was humane to eat meat in first world countries by saying that there would be massive waste and loss of resources if America was suddenly 100% vegetarian.

So in the end, Your debate is falling apart. You have stepped around my points, Provided questions that I have already answered, And altogether have failed to refute my points with reasonable evidence.
The last round is yours, See if you can provide any new reasons why eating animals in first world countries is inhumane, Because it is truly not.
Debate Round No. 3
squeakly54n6

Pro

"My opponent believes that by not killing the livestock that we planned on killing, It will somehow reduce the fact that they still need to eat to survive. "

You understand that the only reason why that is, Is because of the absurd amount of live stock in the country. If for instance we let the animals roam free then natural selection would take place and only the strong animals would survive which would shrink the population of animals down considerably as well as eliminate that absurd amount of food and water required for that many animals. Besides I am not completely against having animals for milk, Wool, Or eggs, I am just against the idea of killing and eating animals.

" But that would quickly be counteracted by the amount of gas used to move around massive populations of animals and massive amounts of extra food and water to the cattle. "

- You understand that the gas used to move these creatures is a one time only man-oeuvre and that the 35 million gallons of gas saved is just a daily estimate for one country. Imagine if all advanced countries suddenly went vegetarian, You are talking about millions of gallons of gas being saved daily.

" Screwed up version of cannibalism because they would be the same basic intelligence as us. "

- Once again you would completely justify killing them if they weren"t the same intelligence at us, Which could also be used to justify killing and eating mentally deficient individuals whom could be bred to be eaten. You are calling for the death of millions of mentally unstable or deficient people simply because of their intelligence.

" Again, Cannibalism. Also again, We didn't breed mentally unstable people to be eaten. "

- Explain to me what the difference between killing and eating animals from a different species to a killing and eating someone from the same species is. Essentially their almost is no difference as mentally deficient people are unintelligent and are sentient just like their animal counterparts. Specifically name me a trait that justifies killing animals but not unintelligent humans that is not that they are the same species as us, As that is almost irrelevant.

- Also just because we bred them to be eaten doesn"t justify them being eaten. This could be used to justify breeding mentally deficient people and then killing them for consumption. Or for that matter breeding humans for slavery.

" In the sentence of mine that you quoted, I made no mention of milk, Eggs, Or wool, While I did finish my point by bringing it back to why it was humane to eat meat in first world countries by saying that there would be massive waste and loss of resources if America was suddenly 100% vegetarian. "

- This is admittedly, My fault and I should have explained it more clearly. I brought that up as an argument as you are acting like we would keep the animals in captivity and gain nothing from it, When in reality we could use them for milk, Eggs, Or wool, All of which don"t cause the animal to die and all of which would benefit humanity. But again this isn"t a debate about the morality of animals being in captivity, This is a debate about eating meat, I hope this explained my point more clearly.

- The Bottom Line is that my opponent is using species and intelligence as an argument to kill sentient beings when this is the same twisted morality that was used to justify slavery, The holocaust, Or any other genocide for that matter.

- To conclude, I have established that eating meat is not something a first world country needs to do, There is almost no justification for it, And by not eating meat we would save plenty of resources that the world needs right now. The millions of gallons of gas wasted causes an increase of co2 emissions which in turn worsens global warming, The billions of gallons of water and pounds of crops can be donated to less fortunate countries who desperately need these resources.
Debaticus

Con

I am waiving my last round like I said I would, So I just want to take this round to congratulate and thank my opponent for a well fought debate.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Debaticus 3 years ago
Debaticus
Since I got to go first, I will waive my last round to keep it fair.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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