Veganism is a morally superior choice than being a non vegetarian.

During the course of the debate, I have stressed on just one point- because that is the core of the argument, killing animals is morally wrong. I established a link between being a non vegetarianism and killing animals, stating that being a non vegetarian is wrong because it translates to killing animals, something which is morally wrong. My opponent argued that killing is not always wrong, to which I replied that it is. He raised an interesting point, taking the example of wife beating in ancient times. It was said that it was ‘moral’ to beat a wife and treat her as a property in ancient times: which implies that morality is something that is determined due to the time frame- and the geography. Because if in UAE, Nigeria, and a lot of sharia-influenced countries, it is socially acceptable. Does that make it moral? No. If we were going by universal yardstick, beating or inflicting violence against any person is immoral, and female is a human: with equal rights as a male, beating a female is immoral. Similarly, since killing any being is considered immoral, and animals are sentient beings, killing them is immoral. Another rebuttal to the ‘killing is immoral’ premise was that humans are omnivores, and that is the view ‘of the nature’ and hence cannot be immoral. However, with the argument, the self awareness of the humans have not been bought into the equation. We have a choice to implement our morals, we ‘think’. We can survive without inflicting pain, injury and death. The ‘view of the nature’ justifies murder, war, polygamy. .. the list goes on. War (systematic extermination of another group of the same species) has been observed in chimpanzees and ringtailed lemurs. Hunting for amusement (i. e. , when not hungry, abandoning the prey) has been observed in several felids (leopards, house cats, etc. ) and killer whales. Siblicide (killing brothers and sisters for a bigger share of parental resources) is fairly common in the animal kingdom. Examples are herons, boobies, egrets, many eagles and falcons, hammerhead sharks (in utero) and hyenas. Fighting or killing for territory (physical land or access to mates) is almost universal in the animal kingdom. Even very "weak" animals like rabbits have been observed battling to the death for territory. Spiders will eat anything that gets stuck in their web, including other spiders. Mantises will sometimes eat their mate. Inciting religion, and particularly Hinduism to get a deterministic view on non vegetarianism invokes a big problem. Hinduism has many epics. Ramamyana and Mahabharata are Hindu epics. Vedas are the oldest Sanskrit literature and scriptures on Hinduism. The epics have a larger influence on the religion. That does not cut down the importance of the Vedas. But trying to get a comprehensive view in Hinduism is difficult. However, what cannot be denied is that the core tenets of Hinduism include Karma and the principle of non violence, that are incompatible with non vegetarianism. By inflicting pain, death, and injury, a person is going to bear the brunt of his actions in the next lifetime. //To refrain from taking life is not the same as to refrain from eating. If you watch an eagle pluck a fish from the river, then you can scare the eagle off and eat the fish. You did not take the life. Likewise, if you purchase meat, you have not taken a life. // This is logically incompatible. A non sequitur. As I have explained quite profusely, demanding meat translates to killing animals. The meat purchased has been killed by humans. One does not pick up dead carcasses from the ground and sell them in market. Another important, interesting reply was made by my opponent to the cannibalistic problem. My opponent contends that it is moral for them to engage in cannibalistic behavior because “ morals are determined by the society”. I would contend that there needs to be homogeneity in our morals. If murder is wrong, killing for eating should definitely be immoral. My opponent contends that to make sure that animals don’t suffer, we keep them in jails their entire lifetime. Not introduce them to freedom and so they cannot miss what they never had. AND try to show empathy and raise them as humanly as possibly, to reduce the pain of subsequently killing them. But what needs to be focused on, is the fact that opportunity cost of ‘making them forget they can have freedom’ is the actual freedom. What we are entering into is a hypothetical scenario, where we are assuming that they will not miss their freedom. That freedom is something they want because they have it, and it is not an innate desire. I doubt that’s true; but lacking empirical evidence for the argument we will have to rely on something else, the practicality of the suggestion. Given that the animal is going to be eventually killed, and again, the sole motive of raising the animal would be to make it ‘healthy enough to eat’, assuming that the rearer would care about the ‘happiness’ of the animal is highly idealistic. The animal, while in captivity, is solely dependent on the farmer/ rearer on everything. The farmer has his own life to live. When we talk about human making sure animals are perfectly happy, we talk about not trying to make them suffer. We are focusing on the lower end of happiness scale- while what we ought to focus on is the upper end. We can ensure they don’t suffer by our hands, and have a few slip ups: but that is not humane. That is not the point. // The resolved is vegan-ism is morally superior. Equal is not morally superior. // Yes, but veganism does not ‘accept’ killing of animals, or any sentient being. Thus, cetris paribus, veganism is better than non vegetarianism, because it ensures that a human is not responsible for killing or suffering of any sentient being. It ensures that a self aware being is not deriving pleasure out of suffering and injury of animals.