Veganism

I accept. I would like to note that I am playing Devil’s advocate, as I myself am a vegan, and tend to sympathize with Pro’s position. == Clarifications == For the purpose of this debate, I will define ‘animal’ as a non-human species of the kingdom Animalia. The definition of a ‘veganism’ is up for debate, but I will define it as “[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man”, and, in expansion, “[a] philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment.” [1] Animals are not part of the ‘moral community’ A definition of ‘community’ is required. Essentially, a community is a group that requires you to have a certain status to merit the benefits of it. For instance, you need to recognize the authority of the Catholic Church to be part of the Catholic community--you need to have the status of a Catholic. Being part of the moral community does not necessitate that you gain *all* moral rights--or even any moral rights--as it is a question of your position within the community. A school president is more important than a janitor in the educational community; similarly, there is a moral hierarchy. I argue that animals lack the moral status to merit moral rights. “The moral community is ... organized around something shared in common by all of its members. This common factor is none other than the capacity for rational agency. … [T]he capacity for rational agency is both necessary and sufficient for having moral status … rational agency is a necessary condition for having any sort of moral standing.” [2] Animals to not fit these requirements as they lack rational agency. Animals do not invoke moral reason, therefore lack any rationality. A pragmatic case against veganism This argument is, primarily, an argument from the direction that non-veganism maximizes overall benefit for society. a) Animal Testing Veganism is directly contrary to the process of animal testing. Since veganism is against *any* exploitation of animals, it is virtually synonymous with the concept of ‘animal rights’, which means it is also contrary to animal testing. Therefore, if I can prove animal testing is beneficial, I have directly negated. This is because, as the Humane Society argues, animal testing can be considered especially immoral. There have been cases of animals killed by “carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means.” [3] But, while the morality of animal testing can be disputed, it is not disputable that these tests save lives. Animals are essential for breakthrough research which has the capacity to save human lives. Our knowledge of HIV/AIDS bases itself on primate testing. Research of cancer in mice can give us ways to cure cancer via gene therapy. “[V]irtually every medical breakthrough in human and animal health has been the direct result of research using animals” [4]. Therefore, government recognition of animal rights hinders saving human and animal lives. b) Sustenance In society’s basic interest, research confirms that a non-vegan diet is healthy. For instance, Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids are found only in small amounts in non-animal sources [5], and n-3 supplements are very dangerous [5]. A review of the research has shown that moderate red-meat consumption “positively influence[s] nutrient intakes and fatty acid profiles, thereby impacting positively on long-term health.” [6] Thus, consumption of animals can enhance human flourishing. For all these reasons, judges can negate. 1. https://www.vegansociety.com... 2. http://www.academia.edu... 3. http://www.hsi.org... 4. http://ca-biomed.org... 5. http://ajcn.nutrition.org... 6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...