Moral Argument: Meat Eating

Thank you and welcome to this site. I would like to make it apparent that the stance of Pro is that it is immoral to eat animal meat, despite what the resolution might indicate. -- Arguments -- Is necessity the only thing which makes something moral? Nay. It is not necessary for humans to drive cars, but we do it. It is not necessary for humans to fly aircrafts, but we do it. It is not necessary for humans to do many things that we do regardless. Therefore, a moral permission does not require a necessity. Moving on, my opponent said that we do not struggle against wilderness anymore, because food is already packed for us. Without intending to hurt my opponent, I must say that this argument is weak. Just because not all of us "struggle against the wilderness" does not mean that eating animals is immoral. I personally have not struggled to produce my computer, but I do use it. In fact, right now I am using my friend's. Next, my opponent says that after all what we have achieved, we still continue to kill animals and eat their bodies, which she believes is an unnecessary and outdated practice. I will come into this, but I will address her four numbered points first. 1. I agree that you can live without meat, but it depends on what you mean by the word "necessary." It is not necessary for survival, but it can be necessary for the sake of one's health. Fish, for instance, are good sources of vitamin D and omega-3 acids. There are many arguments to be made on this, but it does not matter; I do agree that one can survive without meat, although it can be beneficial to the health. http://www.animalag.org... http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.eurekalert.org... 2. I thank Pro for the link, which says, "Further categorization of diets showed that, in comparison with regular meat eaters, mortality from ischemic heart disease was 20% lower in occasional meat eaters, 34% lower in people who ate fish but not meat, 34% lower in lactoovovegetarians, and 26% lower in vegans. There were no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or all other causes combined." I want to make it clear that although vegetarians might be more healthy in general terms, it might not be merely because they refrain from eating meat. If someone wants to refrain from eating something as delicious as meat, he/she needs to do quite a lot to change his/her lifestyle, which is why vegetarians might have healthier lifestyles than meat eaters, simply because they have though a lot about that. Carnivores do not necessarily think of changing their lifestyles for health benefits, and might just continue eating too much meat as they got used to throughout their lives. 3. There are many schools in which the children "suffer" from lack of oxygen or due to bad hygiene. Does it mean that schools are bad? No. But since my opponent placed a distinction between necessary and unnecessary, I agree that my analogy is not the best, but neither is her argument. It is sad that animals are not always treated well, but that is no good argument against the morality of eating animals. You can treat animals well and eat them later on. 4. Once again, I agree that animals suffer and can experience emotions. However, I want to clarify that my opponent looks at modern studies of animal suffering. It was previously thought that animals could not experience emotions, but now, research suggests the contrary. All fine, but I want to see how Pro responds to modern studies which I will elaborate on. Numerous new studies suggest that plants can feel pain. It was previously though that plants were neither alive nor able to experience pain. Some religions who say that nothing should be harmed are obviously erroneous, because plants do get harmed, and they do feel pain. "Research scientists at Baylor Medical Center have proven that plants, including vegetables, feel pain when subjected to trauma such as being yanked out of the ground, peeled, cooked, and eaten." http://www.department13designs.com... "Now with modern day equipment, plant physiologists are beginning to understand much more about plant movement. It has been confirmed that the impulses Burdon-Sanderson detected are indeed action potentials similar to those in animals, they are also now beginning to unravel the molecular and cellular reasons of the ability of plants to respond to touch." http://www.gardenseeker.com... "In his research in plant stimuli, Bose showed, that plants responded to various stimuli as if they had nervous systems like that of animals. He therefore found a correlation between animal and plant tissues. His experiments showed that plants grow faster in pleasant music and their growth is retarded in noise or harsh sound. Bose came to the conclusion that plants can 'feel pain [and] understand affection.'" http://scienceray.com... "Researchers from Michigan State University have discovered that plants have a rudimentary nerve structure, which allows them to feel pain. According to the peer-reviewed journal Plant Physiology, plants are capable of identifying danger, signaling that danger to other plants and marshaling defenses against perceived threats. According to botanist Bill Williams of the Helvetica Institute, 'plants not only seem to be aware and to feel pain, they can even communicate.'" http://www.collegian.psu.edu... To conclude, there is no doubt that plants are alive, and they too feel pain. My opponent argues strongly by stating that animals feel pain, which is why it is wrong to harm them, but we never avoid harming anything if we refrain from eating animals. Only if we refrain from eating anything whatsoever, we will not "harm" the nature. It is not outdated to eat meat, but to say that plants do not feel pain. It is saddening, because they do feel pain, but are different to animals, which is why some people might not take the pain of plants seriously. Morally speaking, there is no difference between eating plants and eating animals. If my opponent is truly sympathetic, she will also refrain from eating plants - which I discourage, of course. My case stands clear; there is no need not to eat animals, because plants also have feelings.