Vegetarianism

To clarify, we are debating "Vegetarianism is a more ethical diet than an omnivorous diet for healthy adults in modern day America" Adding the adjective 'healthy' to adults does not make this debate include that vegetarianism is more healthy. However, I will still address your argument on that. Ethics is the branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality, such as good and evil, or right and wrong. Having said that, there is no agreed on definition of 'ethics', as people can have very different views of what is moral or immoral. A couple examples of these would be abortion, and homosexuality. Now, I will start my rebuttal. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has a specific agency to prevent this. The Agency of Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's tasks include the prevention or cessation of inhumane treatment of animals. Slaughterhouses are held to certain standars because of the Humane Slaughter Act, passed in 1958. Inspectors from the FDA or USDA are responsible for overseeing compliance, and have the authority to stop slaughter lines. I am aware that there are certain situations where animals are not killed humanely, or treated humanely. Please note that this is illegal. Pro's next argument does not actually pertain to this debate. It states that a vegetarian diet is healthier than an omnivorous diet. There are certain situations where this actually is true, such as possibly lowering the risk of heart disease or obesity. Vegetables are generally lower in cholesterol and fatty acid than meat. In today's society, meat is often consider the staple food, or main course in a meal. This is not healthy. The correlation is not between decreased meat consumption, rather it is increased vegetable consumption. There are also a number of health problems related to vegetarianism, including calcium, vitamin b, and fatty acid deficiency. "by buying something, you are supporting it" Buying meat or animal products does not cause the death of these animals. If you were to stop buying animal products, this would not stop the animals from being killed. As for buying these products being financial support of them. This isn't really true, I mean obviously you are buying it, but this suggests that there is a correlation between the numbe of animal products you buy, and the number produced. If you were to stop buying these products, there would not be any less amount of products made. Your first and third point have now been rendered moot. The second never actually applied, and it still does not. "Causing unnecessary suffering is wrong and something to be avoided" Of course, I agree. However, this suggests that eating animal products causes suffering, which is false. Now I will move on to my first argument. In nature there is something called a food chain. It is necessary to keep this balanced. Humans are what is known as a tertiary consumer, or apex predator. In nature, tertiary consumers generally are carnivores. Though humans are an example of one that is not, along with bears, both omnivores. It is not morally wrong to kill and eat an animal. It is what is necessary to survive for secondary or tertiary consumers. The 3 biggest animals killed for food are pigs, chickens, and cows. Note that all of these animals are primary consumers and in the wild would be eaten by other predators. Yes, humans can survive without eating meat, but it is not wrong to eat meat. Now, my second argument. "by buying something you are supporting it" Vegetarianism is a vague term, as some vegetarians drink milk, eat eggs, and eat fish. Further, I would like to state that vegetarianism does not abstain from using animal products such as clothes, leather, soap, shampoo. Therefore, by your own argument you are actually funding the killing of animals as well. Note that I did disprove this argument, but I decided to reverse it anyway. I have now rebutted and disproved all of Pro's points, and made two arguments. Sources--------- http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.acsh.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...