Eating animal meat purely for pleasure is unethical.

======== Case Pro ======== The Capacity to Hold Preferences My opponent's entire contention relies on the infant analogy. If I show that it is not morally wrong to euthanize an unwanted infant, then I win this point. If an infant is unwanted, all alternatives have been exhausted, it is not morally wrong to euthanize him. He will not suffer, and he will not be aware of what is going on so he will not be afraid. My opponent has utterly failed to demonstrate what is morally wrong with euthanizing an unwanted infant; I have shown that there is nothing wrong with it by his very own moral philosophy. Of course, if you accept the philosophy that we have no loyalties to other species, then a case could indeed be made for the immorality of euthanizing an infant. But my opponent's attempts to twist his own position have failed. ======== The Capacity to Suffer My opponent believes that the capacity to suffer "is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others." However, he has not considered why. According to Peter Singer's philosophy, the moral objective is to reduce suffering by as much as possible. This is a logical philosophy. But my opponent contends that animals are granted rights simply BECAUSE of their capacity to suffer. There is nothing magical or special about animals that can suffer. The objective is to minimize suffering, but my opponent has strayed from this objective. If an animal is painlessly euthanized, the animal does not suffer. Objective achieved. But my opponent misunderstands, and wants to grant all rights to these animals. He misrepresents my case by saying that "membership in a species is irrelevant to ethics"; but as I have shown, his case falls apart even if I concede that point (which I don't). My opponent claims to have "demonstrated twice that membership in a species is irrelevant to ethics", but his demonstrations rely on arguments by analogy. Unless he can provide concrete reasoning, this point is not to be accepted. Placing a human mind in the body of a chimpanzee has nothing to do with genetics. And as I said, since humans are defined greatly by their brains, the chimpanzee may be defined as human (or at the very least, partially human). So this analogy fails. ======== Case Con ======== As long as you are living in society, it is possible to commit a crime without social repercussions. My opponent has not rebutted the essence of my argument (that which is based upon selfish gene theory) nor has he offered an alternative explanation for altruistic behavior. Stealing and lying are not moral, despite what my opponent may seem to believe. Those actions became immoral because of the social repercussions, and they will continue to be immoral as long as we continue living in communities. "Nowhere has he demonstrated that following nature is the 'only true option' to form moral principles." What basis for morality would my opponent suggest? He has not yet proposed any concrete basis which provides a different set of morals from those put forth by nature. Emphasis is on the word "concrete": it is easy to make up a moral system, but such a system would be arbitrary. [1] "My opponent has already conceded that our purchase and consumption of meat, however small, leads to the needless suffering of animals." I have done no such thing. Animals can be euthanized. ======== Conclusion ======== I have effectively defended my own moral standard, under which it is ethically acceptable to consume animal meat. I have proven that even by my opponent's moral standard, there are situations in which eating animal meat is not unethical. Resolution negated. Vote Con. [1] http://books.google.com... [2] http://books.google.com... [3] http://books.google.com...