Eating animal meat purely for pleasure is unethical.

Eating animal meat purely for pleasure is unethical. I thank my opponent for issuing this challenge. This should prove to be an interesting debate. My opponent's case is largely based on the works of Peter Singer; perhaps ironically, I will also base my case on the ideals of this brilliant and insightful man. After all, he has been called the most moral person on earth, so how could I not? Much of my opponent's case is irrelevant, and will be ignored. Definitions Animal: a member of the kingdom Animalia. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) The following definitions are from Merriam-Webster: Unethical: not conforming to accepted standards of moral conduct; immoral. Pleasure: a state of gratification. Meat: animal tissue considered esp. as food. ======== Contention 1: Rights and Preferences From where do rights flow? Clearly, there is no consensus on this. I agree with my opponent that suffering should be minimized, and I agree to an extent about the idea of preferences. But I disagree that animals can truly have preferences. Very few animals are self-aware (http://www.wiu.edu...) (http://www.americanchronicle.com...) (http://earthtrust.org...); all other animals are incapable of having true preferences. They may have evolutionary directives, but that is a much more superficial concept. Self-awareness is necessary to have true preferences. Therefore by my opponent's ethical standard, it is ethically possible to eat meat purely for pleasure. ======== Contention 2: The Moral Imperative What is the true dictation of morality? My opponent and I would both agree that morality is deeply rooted in our evolutionary history. What does this imply? It implies that we have no loyalties to animals of other species. Bears, for instance, have no qualms with eating other animals. So why should we? Are we really so different? Bears could just as easily eat plants (http://www.medvede.sk...), and yet they do not. Humans have no loyalties to members of other species. In survival of the fittest, we may do whatever we please to further our own goals. ======== Contention 3: Eating Meat and Suffering By stating that animal meat should not be eaten for purposes of pleasure, my opponent is making an overgeneralization. I can provide several cases in which eating meat for pleasure is not unethical, and in doing so I win this debate. 3a. It is possible to reduce the suffering of livestock to virtually naught. If animals are allowed to roam free, and they are euthanized painlessly, their lives will be no more painful than if they were in nature, and in fact suffering may even be reduced. We would still be eating meat for our own pleasure, but the animals would not suffer and thus would not be unethical by my opponent's standard. 3b. Not all animals are capable of suffering. For example, ants are incapable of feeling pain; their nervous systems are not even equipped for it (http://www.wildbiology.com...). By my opponent's own moral standard, there is nothing unethical about eating insects. And yet, what are insects but animals? ======== Contention 4: Source of Morality Morality is but a code of conduct that is useful for communal creatures. These communities that we live in consist of humans, so morality relates to humans and humans alone. We do not cooperate with other animals (although sometimes we force them to do our labor), so conventional morality does not apply to them. ======== Conclusion I have shown three reasons why eating meat is not unethical by my opponent's standard: most animal preferences (all animals but humans, chimpanzees, dolphins, a few other species) are not preferences but are mere evolutionary directives; suffering in livestock can be greatly reduced; and some animals do not feel pain. I have also undermined portions of my opponent's foundation and shown why, evolutionarily, we have no loyalties to other animals. Resolution negated.