Veganism is morally required.

I assert that (and my opponent has accepted that), at the very least, we have some moral obligation to restrict those actions that cause direct harm to others. This principle was undoubtedly established with respect to human beings, and I accept that. What I will attempt to show through my argument is that there is no reason that this principle should not be extended to animals. At this point, in the 21st century in developed countries, we have the luxury of choice. We are no longer bound by primitive needs and base desires. There was certainly a time when humans needed to kill animals to survive, and I do not consider this morally wrong - and this is important. At that time, it might be said that animals were outside the circumstances of justice owed to them. Now they are within that sphere and it is important to acknowledge that. Likewise, I would not consider it morally wrong to kill another human being in self-defense; when one's life is in danger, the aggressor is no longer in the circumstances of justice owed to them otherwise. Self-preservation is the basis of everything we do; and while it is important not to try to extend this too far (i.e. justifying slavery under the pretense of self-preservation), we must remember how influential it is. But, again, we are no longer forced to kill animals in order to survive. As a result, we should not kill animals because it is unnecessary, by extension of my previous argument. Unnecessary suffering cannot be morally justified in this case. Animals can suffer (I'm not providing a source here because of how well-established this is, but I can do so if my opponent would like). They may not suffer on a level equal to human beings (though they may), but this is irrelevant. A lucid 20-year-old can most likely suffer more than an elderly dementia patient, but this does not provide sufficient grounds to kill the elderly person. Studies also suggest that animals suffer emotionally (http://intl-icb.oxfordjournals.org...), so animal suffering and human suffering are NOT incomparable as some suggest. Humans most likely suffer emotionally to a greater extent, but again, this is irrelevant. A person with well-functioning cognitive faculties can likely experience greater emotional suffering than a mentally disabled person, but this does not justify killing the mentally disabled person. It should now be clear that killing animals cannot be justified because of a lack of animal suffering. Can we justify killing animals because of our superior intelligence? Well, it is unclear why such an arbitrary basis should be used to justify suffering in any context. But even if it could be, the extension of this would be that unintelligent humans could be killed for selfish purposes, which is inconsistent with the Harm Principle and morally unacceptable. So it is not intelligence that justifies animal suffering. Perhaps it is simply because they are animals and we are humans. Justifying animal suffering on the basis of their species is called speciesism. This may sound absurd, but it is objectively no different than racism or sexism. It is simply another arbitrary criterion used to justify inflicting suffering on sentient beings. If it is wrong to enslave black people simply because they are black then it is wrong to kill animals simply because they are animals. There must be another reason, but so far it is not clear what that might be. If it is not intelligence, capacity to suffer, or simply being an animal that can justify killing animals for purely selfish reasons, then what it is? I'll leave that to my opponent. And "selfish" is an important word. There is no reason not to adopt a vegan diet, barring health issues which I addressed before we started, besides selfishness. We like the taste of meat. It's convenient. But it is not morally acceptable and it is childish and wrong to justify real suffering because we like cheeseburgers. A vegan diet provides adequate nutrition (including protein [http://www.vrg.org...]), rendering animal-based diets unnecessary and selfish. The fact that man ate animals 10,000 years ago simply does not matter anymore. We can survive without eating animals, therefore eating them is unnecessary. If eating them is unnecessary, then eating them results in unnecessary suffering. Unnecessary suffering is inconsistent with the Harm Principle and most basic notions of morality. As a result, veganism is morally required if possible. In order to prove me wrong, my opponent must refute one or more of my premises. If he fails to do this, then the conclusion follows necessarily and my argument is correct. Thank you.