The Instigator
chatterbears
Pro (for)
The Contender
A341
Con (against)

Ethical consistency leads to 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
A341 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 561 times Debate No: 114438
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

chatterbears

Pro

Step 1: Why do you eat animals?

Step 2: You have given a reason. Let's label this, 'Reason A'.

Example: 'Reason A' could be, "because I like the taste"

Step 3: You have used 'Reason A' to justify your action. In this case, your action is 'eating animals'. You believe that eating animals is morally acceptable, based on 'Reason A'.

Step 4: If someone else used 'Reason A' to justify one of their actions, would you also find it morally acceptable?

Example: "Mark eats new born babies, because he likes the taste"

Step 5: If you find Mark's actions morally acceptable, you are consistent in your ethics. If you do not find Mark's actions morally acceptable, you are inconsistent in your ethics. If you are being inconsistent, you would have to explain why you are okay using 'Reason A' to justify your actions, but not okay with Mark using 'Reason A' to justify his actions.

Reason for the 5 step consistency test?: Ethics requires consistency in the sense that our moral standards, actions, and values should not be contradictory. Examining our lives to uncover inconsistencies and then modifying our moral standards and behaviors so that they are consistent is an important part of moral development.
A341

Con

Alright running through your test:

Step 1: Why do I eat meat?

A convergence of multiple reasons, first yes meat tastes good, second convenience third cultural importance, fourth I do not believe that the animals I consume are worthy of significant enough moral consideration to make eating them immoral.

Step 2: Alright let's label these reasons a, b, c and d.

Step 3: Yes based on these four reasons I believe it's acceptable to eat meat.

Step 4: Alright so if Mark believes that it's acceptable to eat babies based on the taste, convenience, cultural importance and lack of moral worth do I have to accept him eating babies? No of course not, even apart from the convenience or cultural importance aspects of course there is a moral difference between a baby and a livestock animal.

Step 5: No I'm not in a morally contradictory position because there are significant differences between the situations.

For instance let's say a vegan (we'll call him Pat) eats carrots because he likes the taste. This does not mean that Pat has to accept Mark the baby eater eating babies because he likes the taste because there are significant differences between the situations.

Also I should add on that under the ethical code of Mark the baby eater of course ethical consistency would not lead to veganism as veganism being the result of ethical consistency is of course only the case when being consistent with ones own ethics would result in veganism.
Debate Round No. 1
chatterbears

Pro

Step 1-3: You gave 4 reasons, which you labeled A, B, C and D.

A: Tastes good
B: Convenience
C: Cultural Importance
D: Animals are not worthy of significant enough moral consideration

Step 4: Let's go one by one to see if each reason (A,B,C and D) work.

A: You eat animals because they taste good.
A: Mark eats babies because they taste good.

You don't accept mark eating babies based on the taste. Therefore we can discard reason A as a valid justification.

B: You eat animals because it is convenient.
B: Mark eats babies because it is convenient.

You don't accept mark eating babies based convenience. Therefore we can discard reason B as a valid justification.

C: You eat animals because they have no cultural importance.
C: Mark eats babies because they have no cultural importance.

You don't accept mark eating babies based on cultural importance. Therefore we can discard reason C as a valid justification.

D: You eat animals because animals are not worthy of significant enough moral consideration
D: Mark eats babies because babies are not worthy of significant enough moral consideration

You don't accept mark eating babies based on not being worthy of significant enough moral consideration. Therefore we can discard reason D as a valid justification.

I have now ruled out each justification one by one, so you are now left with 0 valid reasons to justify eating animals.

You may have given a reason E, which was "there is a moral difference between a baby and a livestock animal." - You would have to further expand on this.

Step 5: You said there are significant different between the situations, but did not explain what those differences are. You would have to further expand on this.

"Pat eats carrots because he likes the taste". Pat is not using valid reasoning here, because he would be in the same position you are in, within your Reason A.

The first thing we need to establish is whether or not the action is a concern with morals and ethics. For example, "Pat listens to jazz music because he likes the sound of real instruments." - This is not something that relates to morals and ethics. This is more of a preference that has no harm associated with it. When we evaluate our actions, the consistency needs to come in when we are talking about actions that cause harm.

Eating carrots does have some harm associated with it, because vegetable farming harms animals as an indirect result. Such as, killing field mice. But to give you an example of a consistent position, let me give you my reason for why I would eat carrots.

I eat carrots because it causes the least amount of harm [by a large margin], compared to the meat and dairy alternative. The 'Reason A' I am using to justify my action (of eating a carrot) is to cause the least amount of harm. And no matter what context or situation you use 'Reason A' in, I would see it as morally acceptable, since it would be causing the least amount of harm. This is why using a reason like, "it tastes good", is not a justification you could consistency deploy.

Link to study regarding animal farming vs vegetable farming: http://www.animalvisuals.org...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Holyduck 3 years ago
Holyduck
@chatterbears
You have to specify. Animals and humans aren"t of the same moral value, neither are some humans, the argument goes like this ;
Humans are of moral value
There is no trait that animals lack that if humans lacked we would justify humans to be deemed valueless, therefore animals are of moral value.
Example; "the trait is intelligence"- Well if a human lacked intelligence, say a retard, is it okay to kill them, if you say no then you create a double standard and break the second law of logic, contradiction.
I agree. Animal rights are a logical extension of human rights, and don"t get confused I don"t mean the right to vote I mean a basic right to life. There is no reason to use animals for food anymore when we have easily viable alternatives.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
asta
I think a better question would be, "Ethical consistency leads to vegetarianism" since animals get paid in room and board for the things they produce.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Well ..Eating is not ethical..Ethical is just a word with no taste...Well in a way no real meaning..?
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Ethical consistency starts and ends with eating..
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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