The consumption of meat is ethically wrong

Suffering is bad My opponent concedes the point that, purely by itself, suffering is bad, that there has to be a justification for it in order to be ethical. “The problem with this line of thinking is it ignores the fact that the temporary suffering is what makes the suffering later easier to handle. That temporary suffering is no doubt a beneficial thing to that man, as he can deal with suffering better later.” – Yes, but he is still going to suffer now and later, regardless if the amount is lessened. I mean, you’re justifying suffering with suffering! Do you see how bad this situation is, that it is the best solution? Animal suffering is bad “Your first premise was that suffering is bad by itself. When we talk about farming, fishing, and hunting animals, we are talking about keeping people alive through nutrition. When it comes to keeping people from suffering through giving them the sustenance needed to live, this trumps the short amount of time the animals must deal suffering with during their deaths.” – Basically, human existence is not worth the suffering inflicted (I’ll expand upon this later). “I would also like to point out that the slaughtering methods that are used to ensure the suffering in the killing is at a very minimum…. …Methods include:(1)…” – It's not just that the animals suffer, it's also that you're imposing a life-style/death on another sentient, feeling creature. Humans are animals “A big distinction between us and other animals is the ability to know that we will die in the future. When people are about to be executed, they suffer all the way up to that point until they actually die, because they have the capacity to understand what is exactly going on..” – A difference, but not a relevant one in regards to ethics. For example, say a sleeping man is killed. The man could not see his death coming, hence, according to your logic, the killing of the man is ethical. No, it’s the imposition of ending a sentient, feeling life that makes it unethical – it’s imposing something on another sentient, feeling creature’s welfare that makes it unethical. “If it is a quick painless death, like the USDA approved methods of slaughtering, the suffering is so much less.” – I find it strange that you would make this argument, considering that your previous sentences imply that the suffering of a specific feeling, sentient creature (‘animal’) is justified when another’s survival is maintained. Should preservation of human existence be maintained at any cost? Why does it matter if any animal suffers if it is for the benefit of human existence? It is unethical to murder another human As your response sufficiently counters my point here, I would like to modify my argument point to now read as: ‘It is unethical to kill another human’. The supposed rational reason someone would ever have to kill anyone is to preserve his or her own life. However, this can only take place in an unethical world where humans force impositions on others – I’m saying that this unethical decision should not have to take place in the first place. You’re essentially making ethical arguments based off unethical premises. Ultimately, if there is no justification for the survival of humans, your point is countered… If you agree with me up until now... Your whole counter-argument in this section revolves around the underlying premise that existence is necessary. I’m arguing that life is bad, that the game of life is inherently bad and isn’t worth playing. “The justifiable reason for the suffering caused is that it provides a maximum well-being for people.” – But this is relative to an awful game that we’re playing. Sure, it’s better if we make more people happy by doing certain this, but this does not justify the awful game that we are playing. It’s awful that we have to eat animals in order to survive. It’s awful that there are limited resources in the world so that everyone will miss out on something that they want. It’s awful that the Holocaust happened. It’s awful that people are starving to death in North Korea by the tens-of-thousands every year. It’s awful that our psychology pumps out these wants and needs incessantly. It’s an awful game we’re playing, so why do we have to play it? “As you said before, humans have a regard for their own well being.” – Yes, but this state of wellbeing often comes at the expense of other states of well being. Besides, and I’m going to repeat this a lot because it’s the crux of my final argument: it’s an awful game we’re playing. Do you see how bad it is that we have to deprive other sentient, feeling creatures in order to survive? “If the happiness caused by our consumption of animals is greater than the suffering caused, then maximum happiness is being provided.” – Who derives happiness simply by eating meat? Maybe someone who hasn’t eaten for days, but that’s really a subjective argument based on personal circumstances. No, it’s alleviating a depravation – that’s what meat does. That then allows us to the do things that will make us happy. Besides, not everyone would agree with the notion that happiness is worth all the suffering, especially when considering that happiness is simply overcoming a depravation and that to be happy he or she has to impose negatively on another’s welfare state. “I'd like to think the price being paid for my survival will be paid off in the end through the amount of happiness and well-being that I get for myself and I provide for others. I hope that in the end, there will be a net amount of good from my existence. It may be uncertain whether it will happen or not, but I will personally try my best to make it happen.” – While this is noble, the game is horrible. Is happiness really worth all the pain and suffering that not only non-human animals, but humans too? Consider the ramifications of life and what they impose. Consider that you could never be happy without first over-coming a depravation of some sort, and that sometimes the depravation is not fulfilled. “For the animals in pens and cages, their conditions may not necessarily be better off if they weren't kept in captivity.” – Yeah, the game is so awful that keeping them in cages is the best choice we have. “I agree that some conditions that exist today in animal farms aren't better, but many actually allow the animals to be happy in their lives until death.” – You can’t simply judge a life based on how much happiness it has brought someone or something. You’re imposing a certain life upon another sentient, feeling creature to simply continue your survival in an awful game that makes you impose in the first place. “It's easy to focus on the short moment of suffering at the end of their lives, but we also have to look at what was done in the vast majority of their life. If they lived their lives happier than what would have been if they lived in the wild, then there is a net amount of happiness, not only for us, but for the animals too.” – The happiness fades -- it will never be enduring. There is no point in its existence other than to chase its biological wants. The animal will always want ‘one more’ or ‘one more time'. “For the suffering done to people working in… actually hurt the third world.” – While this is a nice argument relative to the restrictions on life, it’s an argument relative to the restrictions on life. Life is a depravation state – it is inherently bad. You can only overcome the depravation by consuming other things in one way or another. As you can see, my opponent’s arguments are based on the idea that we have to play the game of life. I’m saying that we shouldn’t because it’s such a repulsive game that forces us to make ‘not as bad’ decisions which are inherently awful in themselves. These decisions only seem good because the game is so bad. We’re not caught in a philosophical game, we’re caught up in a psychological game (pandering to life’s impulses) in which philosophy is only justifiable if it is consistent with this psychological game.