It is moral to use other creatures as resources.

I'm really looking forward to this debate. I shall introduce my own arguments then review over my opponents. Definitions: Moral: a just or right action. (merriam webster) Without meat many people would starve and others would suffer deficiency diseases. Hides fur and feathers are environmentally friendly, man made fibers are not. Without animal research for new products and medicine many people will die or become ill. Without zoos, circuses, and other performing animals people will lose their respect for wild creatures. My arguments are in this quote and in this round i shall review each one and explain why it is moral for us to use animals for our benefits. Without meat many people would starve and others would suffer deficiency diseases. This statment is very true as i hope most people already know. Meat is a main source of food for humans and without it much of the worlds population would decrease dramatically and drastically. Alot of people respond to this saying we could live as vegetarians, but this is not true. For one, several vegetarians die annually because they don't have meat whether its the lack of proteins or there body simply can't handle it. In conclusion, without meat millions if not more people will die. I do see this being a moral point to use animals as meat. Hides fur and feathers are environmentally friendly, man made fibers are not. This is an obvious point, this is in realtion to our clothing the hides and fur of animals should go to a good use since we already put them down for meat so how is it not moral? For those who still believe it isn't moral i shall point out there hides and fur cause no harm to our enviorment while man made clothing does. If we only used man made fibers then it would destroy the enviorment cause harm for all species not just humans. Without animal research for new products and medicine many people will die or become ill. I believe this is where many people have problems with this issue and believe it is morally wrong to use animals for research, i disagree. How can we consider it moral to watch many if our own population die off when we could use a small portion of other species. Not only does this help save the human population but also there own we cannot come up with cures for animals aswell as ourselfes without them. Without zoos, circuses, and other performing animals people will lose their respect for wild creatures. This is another touchy point in this issue where i believe most people are mistaken. I would like to start off on this point by explaining these animals dont go through as much harm as people think they do. It's not to often that animals are abused or hurt is zoos,circuses,etc.... actually other than when performing these animals live rather pampered lives. That is not the full point though, if these animals weren't in entertainment many people would lose respect and care for the animals as they would see them as worthless. Now to my opponent's arguments. First i would like to address a statement my opponent made. ' If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration' i would have to disagree with this as if we stopped using animals for resources more humans and animals would suffer because of it so is it moral to save a few and kill many or the other way around? I agree that we should maintain a form of equality between all species on earth but not in the way my opponent has used it. if one life is equal to another is 20 lifes equal to a thousand? No. at least not in moral speaking terms. His case in all makes sence but not in a moral standard, we do not violate the principle of equality we enhance it. Therefor, there can only be a pro side for this topic. Thank you,