The consumption of meat is ethically wrong

Suffering is bad "Yes, but he is still going to suffer... it is the best solution?" The solution to his problem of dealing with suffering later is through temporary suffering. It is a trade off that has a net benefit overall. Animal suffering is bad "It's not just that the animals... feeling creature." Your 6th point in your line of argument is "the consumption of meat is ethically wrong unless the suffering can be justified." Since the suffering can be justified through a net amount of happiness and benefits overall, my point that slaughtering can be done with little pain is very important. If this suffering is justified, your 6th point in your argument makes the consumption of meat ethical, regardless if the animal dies or not. Humans are animals "A difference, but... welfare that makes it unethical." The test for moral judgment is not a test to be administered to humans one by one, but should be applied to the capacity of members of the species in general. If no other species should have the inherent right to life, then there must be a justification in order for you to say it is unethical to kill another animal. You have yet to give one reason why animals should have the right to life. Only that they should not have to deal with suffering. "I find it strange that... suffers if it is for the benefit of human existence?" My whole argument is based on the idea of getting net happiness and net benefits out of the suffering caused. Keeping suffering at a minimum is the best way to ensure that a net happiness is made. It is unethical to murder another human "The supposed rational reason... justification for the survival of humans..." This isn't the only reason someone would kill someone else. Many people fought and died for the betterment of society as a whole. Many are willing to risk their lives so that others may be free and happy. The world itself isn't unethical. Only actions done by people are. Some actions are ethical, some aren't. I think that any rational person would agree that protecting innocent people at the expense of one who intends to do harmful things is an ethically justifiable thing to do. I saw on your profile that you support the death penalty. How could you think this is ethical, if taking away the life of a sentient being is unethical in any circumstance? If you agree with me up until now.. "Your whole... life is inherently bad and isn’t worth playing."I didn't think this argument would end up turning in to a "is-life-worth-living" debate. I thought that was a given when talking about the formation of a code to make a better world. Is the world really better when we "stop playing the game of life"? “"But this is relative... why do we have to play it?" We play the game of life because we hope to have more happiness in life than suffering. We want to make life worth living for us and for others. The game of life is only awful if you look at the suffering alone. Yes, there are plenty of awful things in the world. The Holocaust, the North Korean government, limited resources, and world-wide starvation are some of the worst things that humans have done or failed to solve. But, this does not mean we stop trying. There is a solution to all of these things. Future genocides could be solved through greater education on different cultures and teaching anti-discrimination . The North Korean government will be changed in the future through the failure of the government to keep itself alive. The way we begin to solve the limited resources issue we have on Earth is by looking to the stars. Everything that we've ever desired on Earth, we could have in endless amounts through the use of resources in space. I am optimistic that we will have a world where no man, woman, or child will suffer from the lack of resources to keep them healthy and happy. "Who derives happiness simply by eating meat... things that will make us happy." I don't know about you, but I love eating meat products. Alleviating hunger is a good feeling any time. Also, the hunger that we would feel from not eating would cause a lot of suffering. The prevention of this suffering and the happiness gained from eating the meat is enough to counteract the very small amount of suffering done to the animals in the FDA approved methods of slaughtering. "Besides, not... impose negatively on another’s welfare state." People who are not suicidal/depressed would, at the least, agree that the happiness in life is worth all the suffering that occurs in their personal lives. But you also point out that there is suffering imposed on another's welfare state. This is true, but you ignore the happiness that is imposed on others from the person's existence, and whether the animals had a net amount of happiness in their lives. This is all a balancing game. Life can have a net amount of happiness depending on how things are done. "Is happiness really worth all the pain and suffering... the depravation is not fulfilled." I think my life has had more happiness than suffering. I also think I've given a lot of happiness to others. Although there is no clear method of adding up the happiness and suffering that my life has created, I think that I've done more good than harm to other sentient beings. Yet, one could never be certain. Of course, you have the burden of proof in explaining how there isn't more happiness than suffering overall. “"Yeah, the... the best choice we have." It'd be hard to determine how much happiness and suffering an animal has throughout its life, but having them in captivity doesn't necessarily mean they would have been better off not existing. Animals may very well be happy a lot of the time, and suffering less of the time. "The happiness fades... or ‘one more time'." The fact that happiness can fade doesn't mean there isn't a net amount of happiness in their lives. Sure, animals will always want more. But the suffering it gets from this doesn't necessarily make the life not worth living. "While this is a nice... in one way or another." Life is not inherently bad because it is a deprivation state. Life is full of good moments and bad. There are times of great happiness, and others of great suffering. If we want to make the world a better place through ethics, then we must always try harder to make life worth living. To say it is inherently bad is to give up on all that we have and have done. It is giving up on the hopes of a better tomorrow, and the hopes of maximizing the happiness for all life. "As you can see.. this psychological game." I really hope you don't believe in what you say. Asserting that we shouldn't play the game of life is counterproductive to everything that people have done to make life better. All of human progress, all the scientific advances, philosophy, government, and ethics would be for nothing. I assert that happiness can overcome suffering in the long run. People will become smarter, wiser, and more ethical. The major problems humanity has today will be solved in time, and all mankind will, in the end, be happy. Although suffering will never be completely erased, life can be worth living. This option of working and fighting for a better world is the one I believe we should take. The other option we have is the only way we could solve suffering once and for all. To do that, we'll need weapons of mass destruction. Whether it be hydrogen bombs, antimatter bombs, or even asteroid wrangling, it should be something strong enough to effectively destroy our atmosphere, destroy all habitable regions on land, and forever damage the oceans. Only when we end all sentient life will suffering finally be cured. I hope I have made it clear that, although there is suffering in the world, there is also it's opposite. Happiness. In the philosophy of ethics, I hope we can agree that we are capable of creating enough happiness to trump the suffering that sentient beings must deal with in life. If we can, then we could also agree it is possible that human consumption of meat is ethically sound.