Based on ethics, Meat should be off the menu

"What if a family lives of meat? " Some families do rely on meat to live, For example in some third world countries, The privilege of picking and choosing your food from a supermarket isn't an option. Families who live in these conditions show examples of /necessity/; their infliction of suffering upon animals, While unfortunate, Is a literal necessity for their survival. My argument addresses specifically the /unnecessary/ infliction of harm and therefore such cases are barred. "Even in the West many people still eat meat. If lets say meat was removed what would they eat instead? " Again barring places where killing animals is a necessity, Here in the US and in Western first-world countries, The answer is as simple as picking out a different food item in the supermarket. If you want to know what can be eaten instead, Simply visit your nearest grocery store and peruse the aisles; you will find pastas, Beans, Grains, Vegetables, Fruits, All types of plant-based protein and millions of other food items that aren't meat. We can simply opt for non-meat foods that are fortified with the same nutrients with which meat products are fortified. "The source below states that in 2013 8. 6 billion chickens were processed. What would fill that gap? " - Factory farming isn't going to disappear overnight; we're not going to wake up suddenly with no more chickens and wonder what we're going to eat and sell instead. If veganism was globalized, It could only happen gradually; as more people decided that human beings are not mere animals and don't have an excuse for unnecessary killing and hurting, They would start avoiding paying for it to continue happening. Consumerism for meat would begin to reduce, And therefore the market would eventually (probably over decades) reduce to irrelevancy. Like I said, It can't happen all at once, But the market for chickens would very gradually be replaced by agriculture, Which is the short answer to your question. "Sentient creature is wrong. " - What if it in the end of its life cycle? It is not an absolute wrong if the creature is already dying or will not be capable of sustaining itself for the duration of its life. I would half-agree with you on this point and rectify my original statement. If the creature is not viable anyway, I won"t maintain that killing it would be wrong. Even dying humans are permitted to be euthanized in many places (although it"s very controversial. ) However, This doesn't pertain to the meat industry - it's not as though only animals who are already terminal are being killed and made to suffer. In fact, Even animals held on dairy farms who aren't fed through meat factories live much shorter than their natural lifespans. So sure, It's not an absolute wrong to kill an already dying animal, But that doesn't pertain to the meat industry. 100 chickens or 100 humans? - You assume inaccurately that I hold animals to the same degree of worth as human beings. I don't. I personally hold the opinion that the life of a human being holds more inherent worth than the life of an animal, And therefore that the interest of a human should be valued above the interest of an animal. So when you ask me if it would be more "ethically sound" for 100 humans to survive or 100 chickens to survive, The obvious answer is 100 humans, And I'm betting almost anyone will tell you that. However, Like you said, That's not a real world example, Nor is that dilemma representative of the meat industry. In a situation where eating meat is a necessity to save a human's life, I have already stated that the harm done to animals in those cases is unfortunate but NECESSARY. You used Americans as an example, Claiming that we rely on meat. However, It's not a reliance that we have on meat, It's a preference of palatability. We /like/ meat and that's why we pay our money to factory farms, Not because we have nothing else to eat (see paragraph 2. ) Therefore the suffering we are inflicting is not a necessity. "I highly doubt obese people who have an addiction to meat would not be able to drop meat straight away" - Pointing out that meat-addicted obese people probably wouldn't be able to drop meat straight away is irrelevant; the fact that some people have an addiction to something is not actually a reason to support that thing. For example, I oppose the street market of meth even though I highly doubt those addicted to it will be able to cease their use straight away. "Basically human life is valued more then animal life. Whether or not it is right is debatable. These are my opening arguments. Next round I would like you to explain why animal life should be valued on the same level as a human life. You did say sentient and conscious but I want to elaborate more or give me other ways they should be valued the same way. " You're right, It's debatable. However, Mentioning animals" sentience/consciousness was not stated in a way that indicated that animals are the same as human beings; its point was that they have the same capacity to suffer. Inflicting unnecessary and undue suffering is wrong, Especially to the degree of extremity at which animals in the meat industry suffer. To help you see this issue from my perspective, I want to ask if you believe that skinning your pet dog for your own benefit (for example, Maybe taking a video of it would get a lot of views online and earn you ad revenue. ) should be allowed, Or at the very least if you believe it's a person's moral right to do so.