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

eating meat is not inherently immoral

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,031 times Debate No: 59588
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




eating meat is not inherently immoral

our bodies are designed to eat meat. that is proven by the fact that we eat both meat and plants. and, our canine teeth shows that we are designed to eat meat.

as long as considerations are given to how the meat was created, such as inhumane conditions of livestock being bad meat to eat. especially if you grow your own meat, it is not participating in a corrupt meat market. regardless of the corrupt meat market though, eating meat is not inherently immoral if it wasn't for that.

so how can it truly be called inherently immoral to eat meat?


I will accept this debate. First let me say that I am a vegetarian, but very few of my friends or family members are vegetarian or vegan.

Let me start by addressing your claim that our bodies are designed to eat meat. You first mention that we routinely eat both meat and plants, however this is not evidence of being designed to do so. While we do have canine teeth, those alone are not evidence of being designed to eat meat. Although carnivores and omnivores do have canines, so do herbivores such as giraffes. There are different types of canines, and ours are not the kind designed for shearing. While humans do have the ability to eat meat, this is only supposed to be in rare circumstances. Humans show evidence of being designed to eat mainly plants. For instance, humans have well-developed facial muscles, similar to herbivores, saliva containing carbohydrate digesting enzymes, similar to herbivores, acidic stomach acid, similar to herbivores, livers that cannot detoxify Vitamin A, similar to herbivores, and blunted nails, similar to herbivores, according to Milton Mills M.D.

Not only are humans not designed to eat meat, but eating red meat is the leading cause of heart disease and high blood pressure according to the American Heart Association. In addition, recent research from Loma Linda University shows that vegetarians have a 12% less chance of dying over a six-year period.

As humans are not designed to eat meat, killing animals for human consumption is entirely unnecessary. Just like humans, animals are living beings that can feel pain and have emotions, and killing them needlessly for food is inherently immoral and cruel.
Debate Round No. 1


con's main point is that if we don't need to eat meat, we shouldn't, cause "animals are people too".

that's just an arbitrary stance that is not based on our design or the natural order. the natural order says eat or be eaten.... at the very least, eat. we may not be designed to eat a lot of meat, but we are designed to eat some. in small amounts, it would be the most natural diet to have.... as that would reflect what a caveman would eat. plus the bible should at least be taken to add some evidence to this debate, and it says 'what God has called clean we are not to call unclean"... meaning it is okay to eat meat at least in terms of it not being unclean, and indicating that it is not inherently immoral too.


My main point is not that "animals are people too," as suggested by pro, but instead that animals are living being that feel pain and emotions, and as such, killing them is cruel. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of immoral is "conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles," and it is generally accepted that cruelty to animals is not moral.

In response to pro's point about eating a small amount of meat, I ask for evidence. Humans are able to tolerate eating meat, however this more likely suggests being designed to eat meat only in times of famine. My opponent also references the diet of cavemen, but has provided no evidence to support this.

Finally, my opponent mentioned the Bible. The Bible is not sound evidence for humans being designed to eat meat, however if it is to be taken as evidence, other quotes from the Bible contradict eating meat. For instance, "And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." from Genesis 1:30, and "The wolf and the lamb shall feed together; the lion shall eat straw like an ox; but the serpent"its food shall be dust! They shall not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain." from Isaiah 65:25.
Debate Round No. 2


"In response to pro's point about eating a small amount of meat, I ask for evidence. Humans are able to tolerate eating meat, however this more likely suggests being designed to eat meat only in times of famine. My opponent also references the diet of cavemen, but has provided no evidence to support this."

given humans are omnivores and have canine teeth, the presumption is in my favor. if you wish to rebut that, the threshhold is on you. you say that humans eat meat is "more likely" only for famiine..... that is unheard of, and you critize me for not giving sources?
surely i can find evidence that humans at meat early in civilization and as a species.... but you will just say that it was for faminie purposes. so, where is your evidence?

con cannot provide any. the most natural diet includes a little bit of meat. unless we are supporting an out of control meat industry or some other scenario, only then could eating meat be considered bad. as is, eating meat is not inherently immoral. )


As mentioned before, having canine teeth has absolutely nothing to do with eating meat, as many herbivores have canines. In addition, I have shown that humans are not designed to eat meat and eating meat leads to ill health effects, and as such, it should not be part of our diet. Humans are able to tolerate eating meat, but pro has somehow implied that this means it is part of the natural human diet.

In this debate, pro failed to show any evidence for his claims. In this last round, pro stated that, "surely I can find evidence that humans ate meat early in civilization," yet he did not actually do this.

In closing, humans are not designed to eat meat, and doing so can lead to negative health effects. As the animals killed for meat clearly do not want to be eaten, it is cruelty, and it is immoral.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ldow2000 7 years ago
Firelife, plants do not have brains or nervous systems, and as such cannot feel pain. It's as simple as that. Some people are quick to mention that plants seem to react to fire, but this is not pain, this is a natural response to their surroundings. You mentioned other animals being cruel, but this is because they have to. An alligator could not survive off eating plants.
Posted by Firelife 7 years ago
Eating plants harms them. Plants are also organisms or have people forgotten. neither side has provided many compelling arguments. Remember that animals are cruel to each other as well. Just watch an alligator kill something. As stated you are also harming plants by eating them so what else should we eat.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Atheist-Independent 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't fulfill BoP. Con brought well thought out arguments while con did not bring anything to back up his claim. Pro also didn't capitalize the starts of sentences, so spelling and grammar point to Con.

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