Eating meat in the developed world is morally wrong.

Negative Responsibility Negative responsibility puts people in a situation where they are responsible for the far reaching consequences of there actions and not their immediate actions. For instance Pro would like to hold those that eat meat responsible for the assumed poor treatment of animals since the practice of eating meat encourages the domestication of animals to produce meat. This view makes everyone responsible for virtually all immoral actions. Is it immoral to attend and support the Catholic Church because priests have abused children in the past? Is it immoral to live in the United States because we have a high murder rate and supply guns to corrupt organizations and governments around the world? There is no reason why we should be held responsible for animal abuse when we have not committed these acts ourselves and public outcry over animal cruelty has greatly improved the way animals are treated. The bottom line is that those who eat meat have not treated animals poorly but Pro would like to hold them responsible for this anyways. In other words, the majority of the Industrialized world should be held responsible for the actions of others. In addition, we are immoral for actions that we have not taken i.e. moving toward the unnatural practice of not eating meat because others have abused farm animals in the past. If Pro would like this debate to be about some kind of negative responsibility for animal suffering that should have been made that clear in the resolution. There is no mention of animal suffering in the resolution or opening round so this debate is about eating meat as stated. “Theoretically, it might be possible to cause an animal no suffering by killing it. How this could be done on the scale needed to feed a modern society, I don't know.” Dr Grandin is a high functioning autistic that has done a lot of work to understand and prevent the suffering of cattle and other farm animals [4]. She worked to alleviate even the low level suffering of cows at ranches such as the anxiety the may feel when passing through handling facilities and being spooked by fast movements. Around half of the cattle in the United States and in Canada are now handled using her equipment. Many large beef handlers such as Wendy’s, McDonalds and Burger king routinely use her audit, designed to prevent animal cruelty, with their suppliers who pass or are forced to reform. The requirements enforced by the audits include training employees in preventing cruelty, removing distractions that may spook or scare animals and solid panels so that animals do not see people as they approach stunners [7]. A company like McDonalds has a lot of purchasing power and they buy meat from 90% of the large and medium U.S. and Canadian plants. If you are removed from their buy list that can mean millions of dollars in lost revenue so their audit program has had a large impact on the treatment of animals. They also have an active audit program in South America, Australia, Europe and Asia. She has been the poster child for the effort to prevent animal cruelty on farms. At this point she was quoted as saying that inhumane, “handling’s no longer my biggest concern [4].” “The current state of humane slaughter affairs is so good that when Grandin spoke to the gathering of Midwestern farmers, her talk was not about handling, but about messaging—‘How Farmers Can Connect With Their Consumers.’” Bruising of Cattle was reduced from 20% to 1% when producers were forced to pay for the loss and the practice of fining transporters for sending pigs to weak to walk greatly improved the treatment of pigs [7]. Safety has been a successful motivator to eliminate the shackling and hoisting of live animals. Non-slip flooring in vehicle transport, unloading areas and stun boxes have been successful in greatly reducing the number of serious animal injuries. There is a large list of practical improvements in farms over the last couple decades that has greatly improved the way animals are treated. There are many organizations today that monitor the treatment of animals at farms including the Animal Welfare Institute, Humane Farm Animal Care, American Humane Certified and Global Animal Partnership. The USDA Organic label carries with it requirements about handling animals, how they are stunned and transported for slaughter. Humane slaughter has been a legal requirement since the 1958 Humane Slaughter act. Pro’s stance that animal cruelty is pervasive and necessary in modern farming is simply a poor assumption and he has done nothing to attempt to prove that it is true. The treatment of animals has dramatically improved and continues to do so. The trend is toward better treatment of animals. “and this is another way that we know we are not naturally meant to eat meat…Vegetarians live 6 to 10 years longer than meat eaters, and chicken increases the risk of cancer by 52%.” Pro’s comments that indicate that eating meat is not natural to humans and those vegetarians are healthier are unfounded speculation. It is simply not true and these are claims that he would need sourcing to prove. We are most definitely omnivores [5] meaning both meat and vegetables are part of a healthy diet. Again, lean meat is an important source of protein and other vital nutrients [6]. The Arguments Presented are Based on Assumptions not Evidence Pro has not made any attempt to establish what morality is and confirm that a specific moral code applies to everyone from every culture. Even still, he has applied a nonstandard view of morality without explanation. Why should we be held responsible for the actions of others? He simply assumes that we have a moral responsibility toward animals but has done nothing to establish this. He has not presented any evidence to support that animal cruelty is normal or even common in farms and, in fact, the situation has been improving. - Pro has presented no evidence that the meat eaters should be held morally responsible for the assumed poor treatment of animals from some meat producers. He has done nothing to establish what morality is or to establish that the non standard idea of negative responsibility applies in this case. He has simply assumed that poor treatment of animals is common practice but has provided no evidence to prove that this is true. [4] http://modernfarmer.com... [5] http://www.biology-online.org... [6] http://www.mayoclinic.org... [7] http://www.grandin.com...