It should be considered morally wrong to kill sentient animals for their meat

Thanks again to Pro for the excellent topic and first case. Without further ado, I would like to concede most of my opponent's first round, including her/his analysis on "suffering is bad," "animal suffering is bad," and MOST of "killing animals is morally wrong," as well as the strawman argument that "nonhuman animals do not have rights" really is. The parts where I oppose my opponent should be readily apparent by the end of this round. I will launch a four-pronged attack. The first will be that there are cases where killing for one's meat is not morally wrong. My first round will outline three such cases: 1. Euthanasia plus giving up one's body for consumption (I am ready to defend both euthanasia and cannibalism) 2. Starvation 3. Ignorance These three cases operate as if my opponent's ideas on morality are acceptable. The latter two, while not being morally good, are at least ambiguous enough not to labeled as a "moral wrong." My final (at least this round) contention will deal with my opponent's use of "morality." I will argue: 1. Moral binaries are problematic. Animal executions and cruelty is a complex phenomenon that can't be divided into "good" vs. "evil" or "morally good" vs "morally wrong." In fact, approaching the topics in this way may be bad for animal rights. 2. By arguing for the labeling "morally wrong," my opponent holds people to some standard of "moral rightness," and attacks deviating from that standard. This moral right/wrong divide categorically excludes people into ingroups and outgroups--a divide that structures systematic oppression including the oppression of non-human animals. Euthanasia-meat One must be careful not to generalize too broadly a wrong, such as "killing." Under certain circumstances, aiding in one's death may be morally admirable, or at least not morally wrong. One such admirable circumstance is allowing one to die immediately rather than living a few extra weeks in order to benefit one's family or friends. Allowing oneself to die sooner in order to save their family potentially millions of dollars. This is an example of selflessness sacrifice that should be honored, rather than labeled a "moral wrong." In an extra step of selflessness, one may wish to donate her body for the sustenance of others. This step may be justified for several reasons: for one thing, one ought to be able to do with one's body what one will. While some choose to bury their bodies in coffins, while others prefer to burn their bodies, neither of these options particularly benefit those the deceased person left behind. Allowing her body to be eaten gives substance to others, whether these others are human or non-human animals. Calling the eating of one's body after death a "moral wrong" is ethnocentric, rejecting a particular cultural acceptance of eating human flesh for the classic European disgust of the same. In fact, giving up one's body is a brave decision, and allowing others to be benefited after death is an example of moral bravery. Jesus effectively allowed himself to be killed to benefit others according to the Christian/literary tradition: Most would agree that this was a moral right. Allowing oneself to die quickly (killing oneself, a sentient being) for meat in this case is an example of moral goodness. Starvation: If one were to kill oneself in order to use one's body to save a starving friend, she/he would be doing a moral good. If one were to kill another to save a starving self, this may not be a moral good, but we should not be so quick as to judge her/him as committing a moral wrong. This is a move of desperation, a moral gray area. Ignorance: I would not hold a child responsible for eating meat in a culture that condones eating meat. This is the same for adults who never encounter animal rights arguments. Blaming such persons is not helpful to the vegetarian/vegan movement. Instead, one should seek to educate, not condemn. Thus, these persons' eating meat should not be considered a moral wrong but an unfortunate act of ignorance that ought to be remedied through education. We ought to change these things; blaming is in this case unnecessary and unhelpful to the cause of change. Moral Binaries: See above. I will elaborate next round. (Unfortunately I need to travel during the next 24 hours). Moral Right/Wrong Moral "Wrongness" implies a deviation from a moral "Rightness." This particular label endorses only a select in-group, based on anthropocentric, ethnocentric ideologies. If one group of people is "right" and the other is "wrong" (deviant), then one set of social values is raised above all others. This subscribing to only particular cultural norms automatically in effect assigns epistemology preference for a particular culture and a particular species. This shuts out the voices of minority values (such as cannibalism), and the values of other species. Let me be clear: It is fine to hold particular beliefs, but to categorize the behavior of others a "right" or "wrong" (deviant) devalues the less empowered or minorities. It is this same ignoring the values of the oppressed/minorities that has caused homo sapiens to ignore the plight of non-human animals in the first place. My opponent could have said that killing sentient animals for their meat is "hypocritical," "problematic," "an enormous disservice to the inherent value in the sentient animals," or any other number of word combinations; however, by choosing to talk about "moral wrongness" by opponent unintentionally structures the same mentality that has caused non-human animal oppression in the first place. We should stop talking about moral wrongness and rightness so that we can better engage with and change the problematic societal structures instead of reinforcing them. The above arguments suggest exceptions to "moral wrongness" and also attacks moral wrongness in general. Notice that my exceptions still minimize suffering, and actually seems to create a better world than the kind my opponent advocates. Thanks for reading! Looking forward to my opponent's response.