The Instigator
Absolution2012
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
itdobelikethat
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Ethical principles of veganism

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: 9/17/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,008 times Debate No: 118260
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Absolution2012

Pro

There is no trait absent in an animal, Which if absent in a human, Would cause us to justify treating humans like animals. Veganism is a logical extension of human rights.
itdobelikethat

Con

but that's where you're wrong, There is a massive line between animals and humans. Animals don't have significant intelligence, Any form of technology, Societies, And any other defining properties that could give them rights. Plus, You've said it yourself that it's HUMAN rights.

I'd like to bring up a scenario that turns the veganism boycotting of animal products seem much more unethical than just eating animal products. Lets say, A person who is non-vegan walks into a supermarket, And walks up to a carton of eggs. Lets also say that they also need eggs for something. He would pick up the carton, And use them in some form.

Now, The same scenario, But with one variable changed. The person is vegan. They get to the eggs and do not take them, And a carton of 12 eggs has been disposed of for going bad, Because if one person who would have bought the eggs, But did not because of personal preference, The eggs are wasted.
Debate Round No. 1
Absolution2012

Pro

There are humans who lack all of the traits that you've mentioned. By your own reasoning, It's okay to kill them for food.

Anything else you said is irrelevant.
itdobelikethat

Con

Every human on earth has higher logic capacity than animals. No defect of any kind can turn your brain from logical processing into animalistic survive or die mentality. Technology doesn't mean smartphones it means and type of tool, No matter how basic, That is manufactured for the purpose of aiding it's user. Note this doesn't include anything found naturally such as berries, Leaves, Or herbs that animals use for food or camouflage.

why is everything else I said irrelevant, It's directly related to the ethics of veganism. You can't just say "that doesn't count" to everything to make yourself seem right.
Debate Round No. 2
Absolution2012

Pro

First of all, Sorry for brushing off the second part of your comment as irrelevant, Without explaining why. I was feeling very lazy when I posted that. I'll concede that it's in fact pertinent to our discussion.

So, Earlier, I said, There is no trait(s) absent in an animal, Which if absent in a human, Would cause us to justify slaughtering humans for food. The traits you've put furth seem to be

1 - Rationality

2 - Technology

3 - Society membership

The problem with this is that there are humans who lack these traits. What about a mentally disabled human, Who's in a asylum? Is it okay to kill them? If you don't mind me going the hypothetical route, What if you encountered a retarded human in the wild? Again, Your logic tells us it's totally fine to slaughter them.

Eggs being wasted isn't unethical. I mean, That's the goal of veganism. To encourage people not to buy animal products. It's good that eggs aren't being bought, Because that means less people are contributing to the dairy industry.
itdobelikethat

Con

So, I agree with the list of three traits, However, Allow me to expand on the topics.

1. Rationality. This means that the creature has the ability to reason things. Such as "If i do x, Y will always happen" this is the most basic hurdle that is in this code, And most animals are able to reason to a minute degree.

2. Society membership. The creature can form groups and collaborate with other creatures of its species. Forming packs that move from place to place, Or set up a home area with areas designated for food or sheltered areas. This hurdle wipes out the most animals, As usually animals just kinda do their own thing. Birds, Wolves, Apes, And probably some kind of fish are all that are left.

3. Basic Technology. The creature can combine naturally occurring objects to aid its life, Such as two rocks used to break a hard shell. This removes everything but apes, Which are illegal to kill. Therefore, Giving them the RIGHT to life and habitat protection.

I hope that list cleared some things up. I'll be referring to it as the ARC or "animal rights code".

Now, With that part out of the way, I'd like to say that mental disabilities, Do not change the fact that they are still humans. This means that, On a scale of humanity, The mentally disabled are outliers. Thus not affecting the human race's standing on the ARC.

I'd like to thank you for clearing up that veganism is less of a philosophy, And more of a boycott. I'd like to return the favor by clearing up the problem of this boycott. As the eggs example is the easiest one to build on, I'll keep using it. A chick costs about $2. 50, And feeding it to maturity costs, Let's just say $25 worth of oat feed, Because I don't raise chickens and wouldn't know this. So to raise a chicken to the point that it could lay eggs would cost $27. 50. Then to keep it alive, Lets just say $75 in feed so it's now $102. 50 to raise one chicken. Now for the ridiculous part. Chickens lay 530 eggs on average in their lifetime. This is where the problem kicks in. ONE EGG pays at the very minimum price, The full price of the chick (which makes sense, Because eggs=chicks). Multiply 2. 5 by 530, And one chicken pays for itself 13 times over. That would mean that 300 MILLION people would have to be vegan in order for the dairy industry to suffer.

oof.
Debate Round No. 3
Absolution2012

Pro

I think I've got a decent understanding of the aforementioned traits, But I nonetheless appreciate your elaboration.

Your response to my hypothetical was

> I'd like to say that mental disabilities, Do not change the fact that they are still humans. This means that, On a scale of humanity, The mentally disabled are outliers. Thus not affecting the human race's standing on the ARC.

Sure, They're still humans, But you have to remember that I asked you to name a trait that justifies killing animals for food but not humans. If you name a trait or traits that certain humans are going to lack, Then it logically follows that those certain humans are eligible for slaughter. If you mean to include all humans, You probably should have named humanity as the trait, But then I'd like a clear affirmation of you abandoning those three traits and moving on to something else.

Boycotts can be done out of ethical reasons, So I'd still say it's philosophical. Anyway, You say this

> 300 MILLION people would have to be vegan in order for the dairy industry to suffer.

I don't see how this invalidates the ethical principles of veganism. You're now arguing about the pragmatic side of things, Which is completely seperate from ethics.
itdobelikethat

Con

The thing is, I never said that the mentally disabled are lacking in these traits. The have a limited ability to reason, Definitely can pick up rocks with a purpose for them, And even the people with such severe capacities to be in an asylum have a societal standing, As outcasts.

And also i accept that the boycott is out of ethics, I just thought that the fact that buying the eggs and putting them to some purpose would justify the sacrifice, Rather than the alternative of letting the go to waste. If the case, Then I will accept that as the reason for the ethical boycott.

I agree that i was indeed focus on the wrong thing in the last part, But i just thought the incorrect thing about the issue for a moment, Which was my fault.
Debate Round No. 4
Absolution2012

Pro

> Definitely can pick up rocks with a purpose for them

1. I don't see how that signals a capacity to reason, An animal is able to pick up rocks, Doesn't mean it's in capable of reasoning in any significant way.
2. Outcasts are, By definition, Lacking in the 'Society Membership' trait.

But we've only got one more round left, So I'll try to give you a clearer hypothetical. Say you went to the more unexplored places of the Earth. You found a baby that was abandoned by its parents. It isn't not capable of reasoning, It isn't a member of society, And it lacks any form of technology. Under your ethical system, It's eligible for slaugher. So, Do you bite the bullet on that?
itdobelikethat

Con

As this is the last debate round I'd like to thanks pro for the debate.

1. The rocks thing was part of the technology, An example of an animal with basic technology is apes that can use rocks to smash open hard shells.

2. This is also false, As even in ancient India, Outcasts were part of society. Untouchables are the lowest members of the caste system, And as the name suggests, They were outcasts.

yet again, I'd like to bring up the fact that, While it would fail the test on its own, The baby is still human, And the code of ethics only applies to the average member of a species. The average human would definitely pass.

now lets watch this debate fall into the endless pile of good debates that get no votes, And ends up in a draw.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by shortkid64 3 years ago
shortkid64
Absolution you did a great job. Itdobelikethat if you think you could logically prove a fallacy exists in the vegan argument please seek my debate and I will help you understand why you are wrong.
Posted by shortkid64 3 years ago
shortkid64
Absolution you did a great job. Itdobelikethat if you think you could logically prove a fallacy exists in the vegan argument please seek my debate and I will help you understand why you are wrong.
Posted by shortkid64 3 years ago
shortkid64
Absolution you did a great job. Itdobelikethat if you think you could logically prove a fallacy exists in the vegan argument please seek my debate and I will help you understand why you are wrong.
Posted by itdobelikethat 3 years ago
itdobelikethat
it's kinda funny that we continued an intelligent debate about the morality of eating retards
Posted by Absolution2012 3 years ago
Absolution2012
And the significance of that is?
Posted by itdobelikethat 3 years ago
itdobelikethat
i just re-read this debate and somehow it went from normal to is it ok to eat retarded people.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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