The consumption of meat is ethically wrong

My line of argument will be as follows: 1. Suffering is bad 2. Animal suffering is bad 3. There are ethical arguments for the preservation of life amongst humans 4. Even if the suffering of harvesting animals could be nullified, the imposition on life in unethical 5. In regards to suffering and impositions on sentient life, there can be no distinction made between humans and other sentient, feeling creatures 6. As meat can only be obtained by imposing suffering and or a restriction on sentient life, by extension, the consumption of meat is ethically wrong unless the suffering can be justified Suffering is bad In a sense, you cannot derive an is from an ought. So, objectively speaking, suffering itself is not inherently bad. However, there can be an objective truth derived relative to the intersubjective spectrum. In other words, everyone will agree that, by itself, suffering is bad. Perhaps if there are 'rewards' for suffering, notions tied into 'character building' or 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger', then there would be a reason (which themselves seem to be based on avoiding suffering, something I will explain next). So, purely by itself, based on what everyone feels/thinks, suffering is bad. In regards to character building, humans have these notions because humans think that suffering is bad; by becoming 'stronger' (which is thinking that the suffering isn't that bad), we can deal with life better and experience less suffering. To demonstrate this idea, say a man suffers a scratch to the face from a rose bush as he treks through the jungle. If he were to sit down and cry, you wouldn't think he was very strong. The fact is that crying won't make the pain go away. However, the man can suffer less if he thinks that the pain isn't anything to worry about. This is the placebo effect in action (the mind changing the severity of the pain). So, character building is a method used to experience less suffering in painful circumstances engineered on the fact that everyone thinks suffering is bad. To put it another way, character building does not make suffering good, it only makes it less bad. Animal suffering is bad I suppose that I must first affirm that animals (specifically ones with meat) can experience suffering. From Richard Dawkins himself: "I conclude that we have no general reason to think that non-human animals feel pain less acutely than we do." [1] While this does not explicitly say that animals can feel pain, it is heavily implied as it an assumed premise for what he said. I know that this isn't the best evidence, but Valladarex essentially concedes this point in his outline, thus I think it would be waste of time to search for further evidence. By extension of my first premise (suffering is bad), it follows that animal suffering is also bad. It is of no consequence the exact nature of what entity experiencing suffering -- factors like intelligence are irrelevant when it comes to experiencing suffering (albeit relevant in reducing suffering). To put it clearly, the only relevant factors to suffering pain are sentience and nerves. Yes, plants don't have nerves or sentience, therefore it doesn't matter what we do with them (at least ethically speaking in regards to suffering). I expect Valladarex to make the argument that we should be ethically allowed to kill animals if we ensure all measures are taken to lessen the suffering induced. I am now going to try and prove that the act of killing animals is unethical itself. Humans are animals I'm going to make this point because I think it will help people understand my argument. I think it is often forgotten that humans are simply intelligent animals. All this self-glorification and celebration holds no truth in regards to our biology. We are not special in any realm other than our thoughts. Sure, we've done some 'amazing' things, but these are only 'amazing' relative to our own standards. Ultimately, we have flesh like the animals we kill. In the hope of showing a contradiction, I guess you could try to tie this point back to how I said that humans can say suffering is bad. My counter-argument would be that these atrocities (killing of animals) are not seen by everyone. If people could physically see and logically understand what exactly their existence currently necessitates, I daresay that everyone would think very differently. It is unethical to murder another human I know this will seem like a given to everyone, but I think the method in which it is determined requires analysis as this will lead to a conclusion in regards to other sentient, feeling creatures (animals with meat). For example, an argument such as 'I don't kill other people because I don't want them to kill me' is not grounded in an ethical context. This example is simply stating the facts, rather than providing an ethical framework... ...but I have a solution. Humans have a welfare state, a regard for their own well-being. I believe that it is the imposition which is unethical, in other words, forcing or causing the murder of someone imposes an unwanted state (a non-wellbeing state) upon him or her. Relative to this debate, most likely, the justification for the consumption of meat is that we need to eat meat to survive... If you agree with me up until now... It's here where I'm going to take this debate into relatively new territory: why is the existence of humans necessary? Not only that, but how can it be justifiable to cause suffering to others in order to survive when the necessity of survival is yet to be affirmed? Sure, animals should not have rights considering the definition that Valladarex outlined, but we are certainly responsible for the suffering of other sentient, feeling creatures. Ethically, there should be a justifiable reason for the suffering caused. If you agree with the tenants I have previously proposed, then you must justify human existence. I urge you, Valladarex and anyone reading this, to calmly consider the need for human existence. I want you to consider the price being paid for your survival. Do not only consider your life, which may be full of fun and happy times. Consider all the suffering endured for your meat product. Consider the imposition of keeping animals in pens and cages for their entire lives -- bred and kept alive only to be eaten. To strike closer to home, also consider the suffering of other humans, the ones in third-world countries working in horrible environments so you can have your cheap clothing. Imagine that other sentient, feeling creature was you. Sure, the animal isn't exactly the same as you, but it is when it comes to the fact that it experiences suffering. Especially since we, as humans, can understand the suffering being inflicted, should it not be our responsibility to prevent it? Your existence is causing other sentient, feeling creatures suffering and I want you to justify this. [1] http://old.richarddawkins.net...