It should be considered morally wrong to kill sentient animals, without consent, for their meat

As by private request, I have agreed to make this the final round of the debate. Implications: a. Yes, I’m addressing humans, but I can still talk about what should be considered as moral for non-human animals without addressing them. b. No, I do not argue that we must eliminate carnivores. Rather, we should stop them from breeding and eating other sentient animals. If the latter means that they starve to death (which seems likely), then this, I have argued, is the lesser of the two evils. Again, disallowing such immoral creatures to continue devouring other animals in such a way, is less evil than allowing it (in the long run). c. Yes, it probably would kill off entire species, and considering these species are thoroughly deplorable in their moral conduct, I see this as a good thing. Disallowing them to breed would be against their consent, but they shouldn’t have that right, especially considering the context here. We are not directly destroying them (i.e. we’re not killing them), so the quarrel about consent is irrelevant. Contention 1: Anthropomorphism If these animals have the capacity (i.e. they can understand what they are doing will hurt the other animal), then they should be bound by a moral in respect to this. What my opponent argues is that this is a “far cry” from human morality, which as he admits, has a far higher standard. My opponent is unnecessarily restricting the concept of morality by saying that it can only be applied to humans. I am not proposing that human morality should be applied to non-human animals. Again, I have proposed a lesser level of morality, one that fits the capacity of non-human animals. Contention 2: Speciesism “My opponent uses bad psychology to falsely claim that non-human animals have the capacity for an "inferior" morality, and that because of this fact humans have the authority to pass moral judgement over the non-human animals. In fact, this is quite hypocritical, since humans are the least moral creatures on earth, even by their own standards (let alone the standards of other species).” This is Ad Hominem. 1. “Even humans can't agree on morality…” So it would be better to have no construct of morality than to have a construct of morality? My framework that I have argued for is more moral than the slaughter, suffering and terror that occurs in the non-human animal world via the relatively insatiable carnivorous creatures. 2. More Ad Hominem; just because someone is immoral, it does not mean that he/she cannot argue something that is moral. 3. “My opponent falsely assumes that humans are superior to other animals…” I absolutely DO NOT argue that humans are superior to non-human animals, rather, I argue that humans are superior in certain aspects (such as intelligence) -- this is a straw-man. I also DO NOT argue that because animals can’t live up to human morality, they should be killed – another straw-man. Contention 3: The End of Life “My opponent literally advocates the extinction of carnivores.” I advocate that these immoral creatures stop killing sentient, feeling animals for their meat. If that means that the species will become extinct, then so be it. “If carnivores are killed off or made to not have children, there would be a radical change in the already fragile food web that would cause additional starvation, additional extinction, and therefore additional starvation.” You could always limit the rate at which the prey bred, or even not allow them to breed. My opponent assumes that if were to stop carnivores from breeding, we would change nothing else afterwards to compensate. Contention 4: Utter Immorality Again, I’m not arguing that it would be moral to destroy these carnivores, I argue that it is immoral to let these carnivores wreak havoc on sentient animals, and that humans are morally obliged to act seeing as they can understand the suffering being inflicted. Everyone is not necessarily going to “starve to death”, as humans aren’t reliant on these animals. As for the carnivores, there may be other methods of feeding these animals, and these should be looked into. Their breeding could be lessened slowly, perhaps along with other animal’s – there are ways around causing catastrophe. But this is beside the point. Again, this is about choosing the lesser of the two evils. Conclusion: Believe me, I understand that what I have argued won’t be considered popular. However, I have provided a moral framework that can be applied to humans, considering what they are capable of. Don’t you think that humans could exist without meat, at least go without the few nutrients that (debatably) are found within meat? The suffering and imposition that results from killing animals for their meat isn’t moral. In a day and age where you can consume vitamins to make up for deficiencies, why not do that? Even if you don’t agree entirely, my opponent basically agrees with me. One of my opponent’s main issues is that forcing species to go extinct isn’t moral. In response, I say that we aren’t forcing them, but would be setting up a situation where, if I’m honest, extinction seems likely. Again, I am not condoning/advocating the killing of these animals – the problem is not their existence, rather it is their actions. These animals create such a massive overall deficit, in terms of pleasure/suffering (the suffering inflicted on other animals and the suffering involved in being hungry), that it would be immoral to allow them to perpetuate the species’ existence. Sure, this isn’t exactly a pleasant idea, but it is far more preferable, morally. Another of my opponent’s issues is that humans are immoral, and because of this, they can’t argue something that is moral/shouldn’t be imposing something that is moral. As I explained earlier, it should be clear that this is Ad Hominem. A third of my opponent’s issues is that of anthropomorphism. Why is morality a concept that can apply only to humans? I have not tried to force human standards upon non-human animals; rather, I have suggested that animals can be held accountable to a lesser standard of morality, one that fits their capabilities. They are capable of empathy, some to a lesser extent than others, yet still capable. They have the capacity to understand the suffering being inflicted, should they not be held by a moral standard that reflects this? Hopefully, my moral framework shines favourably in your eyes, and that the partial impracticality and superficial nastiness of it isn’t weighted higher than the moral aspect, after all, this is a debate about morality. Yes, it won’t be easy to lower the long-term suffering and imposition that is placed upon sentient creatures, but it would be moral. I thank my opponent, kbub for a fierce opposition. I hope that what I have written has been worth you consideration :)