Eating animal meat purely for pleasure is unethical.

Let me first begin by thanking my opponent for his willingness to debate me on this issue. Before we continue lets clear some things up. I'm not a spokesperson for PETA nor am I here to defend any of the views that they may hold. I'm only responsible for defending my own views and what I have written thus far. Secondly, I am not arguing that the government should impose sanctions that would put meat farmers out of business. Perhaps you may be unaware that this is my position. ======= Case Con ======= "This isn't arguable if you know anything about the physiological or neurological makeup of chickens and clams." Thanks for that bold assertion. Any sources? Any evidence?" I don't see how my assertion is "bold". Chickens have a much more developed nervous system than clams do. Likewise, humans have a more developed nervous system than chickens do. (http://www.britannica.com...) (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Contention #1. This is the problem. You havent provided any guidelines as to which animal should receive such rights, and which should not. Escargot, for example, are eaten purely for pleasure, and undergo the same conditions as Cows and Chickens." The ability to experience happiness and the ability to suffer can be useful criterion for determining what animals have rights. I have serious doubts about whether Escargot, flies, or clams can suffer their own destruction in any way. Likewise, I have serious doubts that they have emotional lives in the way that cows and pigs do. Do snails yearn for their mothers and get sad when they are alone? (Probably not) If they can suffer its probably such a small amount that it would be inconsequential to questions of ethics. Much work still needs to be done by neuroscientists and biologists on these issues. For this reason I'm still waiting for more evidence to come in. Your getting hung up on something that you shouldn't be getting hung up on. I've said it before and I'll say it again; we don't need to create a line that would dictate what animals should be eaten and what animals should not to be eaten. We create all sorts of arbitrary rules in society that more or less coincide with reasonableness. Perhaps I can demonstrate the flaw in your thinking by way of an analogy. What is the neurological difference between someone who is 17 and 364 days old and an 18 year old? If such a difference even existed it would have to be infinitesimally small. The difference in these two individuals, in practical terms is that one is legally an adult and one is not. One can vote, the other cant etc. It's perfectly reasonable to create certain arbitrary principles in society when your dealing with issues that exist on a continuum e.g. (the acuity of maturing homo sapiens) or (animal suffering). If society were to adopt your ultra conservative and empiricist methodology for making these types of moral decisions we would be severely hindered in forming cogent moral principles. Reason can guide us to the conclusion that swatting flies is morally inconsequential whereas killing pigs is not. Like I've said earlier animal suffering exists on a continuum and it's not necessary to draw arbitrary lines that would allow some animals to be eaten while others should not be eaten. And if we did draw did draw lines they would be just that, arbitrary. ======== Contention #7 FREEMAN- "They can find a new line of work." TKUBOK- "Brilliant. So youre trading in the suffering of animals, for the suffering of human beings? Clearly you are the most ethical man of all! Im convinced!" Sardonic humor mixed with dry wit and sprinkled with sarcasm is amusing but it doesn't amount to a logical argument. There are all sorts of industries that make millions of dollars every year that entail the deliberate mistreatment of conscious creatures. Human trafficking, the slave trade, and pit bull fighting has undoubtedly made many people rich many times over. The fact that people can make money in an industry is not a logical reason that the industry should be preserved or that the industry is operating ethically. So that's the first point. Secondly, huge corporations and conglomerates run many of the factory farms that raise cattle or other animals. It's unlikely that corporate executives would find themselves in line at the Salvation Army waiting for soup bowls when they're sitting on 20 million dollars in the bank. ================= "Secondly, are you not opposed to them becoming homeless? If not, then again, answer my question. Who will provide the money for their retraining? Who will provide them with the tools necessary to achieve a new job?" You speak about meat farmers as though they've been entitled by God to make money. Well guess what; they haven't. In a free market where citizens choose not to eat meat they will have to evolve or die out. Or do you not believe in free markets? If I'm selling a product and that product eventually becomes obsolete it's not anyone's responsibility to bail me out. If someone does help me with money or whatever then great, but its not their responsibility. ================== "So, my next question would be, is it ethical to disregard the sufferings of a human in favor of an animal?" No, insofar as the suffering is disproportionate in our favor with respect to the qualities humans possess. If given a choice I would save a human over a chimpanzee because humans have the ability to hold preferences, feel happiness and plan for the future in ways that no chimpanzee possibly could. Unless you think that the temporary inconvenience of a meat farmer who must adapt to changing markets is morally equivalent to the suffering endured by the thousands of animals he butchers then this argument can be dismissed at face value. If you want to argue that the two are morally on par then by all means go ahead, blow my mind. Your utility claim for meat farmers is not on all fours and reasonable people don't have to treat it as such. Contention #10. "I am assuming that you are talking about animals here. And this is the problem. Being free, allowing to live, among other things, are the basic rights applied to humans. Yet, clearly, you are not opposed to eating animals by people who require, or cannot choose otherwise. So, animals dont receive the same rights, yet, you make an advocation that animals should have the same rights? Your contradicting yourself." I'm no more contradicting myself then you are demonstrating a coherent use of logic. If someone eats meat out of necessity for their life then at that point they wouldn't be consuming it purely for pleasure, which is the basis of my entire argument. Arguing that animals should be free and not slaughtered as a means for human pleasure is not the same as arguing that they should have equal rights with humans. I fully acknowledge that animals and humans should have different rights. At the very minimum they shouldn't suffer under the wanton cruelty of greedy profiteering humans who use them as a means for pleasure. This isn't asking for a whole lot on their behalf. ====== Case Pro ====== Claim 1 Membership in a species is not relevant to matters of ethics. I've demonstrated this before and so far its gone unchallenged so it remains intact. Claim 2 It is morally wrong to knowingly cause animals to suffer for no good reason. Claim 3 HUMANS don't need meat to survive therefore eating animals for pleasure is not a sufficient reason to curtail their happiness. Best, Freeman