The Benefits of the Ethical Treatment of Livestock Outweigh the Disadvantages

Thanks Pro. Time to stop procrastinating and get this argument written". sh*t 37 minutes!!! Ack! I. Preface I will present my own arguments this round and save my rebuttals for the next two. The resolution is a rather vague one since is alludes to the "benefits" of moral treatment of livestock rather than whether or not the treatment must be moral on the face of it. With that in hand I will argue that from the perspective of the human species, then immoral treatment is highly beneficial for our own species II. Provides the necessary food quantity It is a brute fact that the "immoral" treatment provides greater volume and profits for the industrial bodies that deal in livestock. By providing better living conditions, which consist of additional roaming space, quality of food and reduced selective breeding for the purpose of maximizing adult lifestock size, weaning time, meat yields etc. we effectively reduce the production costs "per kilo" of meat and hence puts more meat on the plates for more people than would otherwise.[1-3] In chicken farming, for example, the turnover rate for egg laying has increased from just ~83 eggs/year up to ~300 eggs/year.[6] In cattle, breeding for larger cows has lead to 55% size increases in Jersey sired cross-bred female cattle,[7] with numbers across all breeds at ~18% over the past 20 years.[8] III. More animals would otherwise be killed If we assume that the same quantity of meat is going to be eaten regardless, then it clearly follows that more "moral" methods of farming would yield smaller livestock, since we would no longer be breeding them as aggressively for maximal size/maturity time. If we have smaller livestock then we will require more animals to be slaughtered to yield the same quantity of meat, and hence many more animals will have to die to meet our dietary requirements. [3] IV. Just what is "immoral"? I would like to know how Pro can possibly regard any action against mammals as immoral, by what justification? It seems from Pro"s opening round and I expect by the voter"s views that what is regarded as immoral is what we would perceive as immoral if applied to us. But this is problematic, since it doesn"t necessarily apply that human emotions, values, perceptions etc. are directly transferrable to other animals. We, after all are unique in that we are substantially more intelligent and much more capable of perceiving second-order suffering than animals are.[4] It doesn"t automatically follow that an animal will feel what a human feels, especially when we discuss animals further from us on the evolutionary tree, such as poultry (which are distantly related via. reptilian ancestors). We have absolutely no reason to believe that their brains are wired up anything like how our own brains are.[5] V. If we value life, then factory farming is good! This is a rather blunt argument, if we consider a life that is lived is more valuable/worthwhile than a life never lived, then it clearly follows that even a short and rather painful existence is preferable to complete annihilation. If we reject this argument then the flipside can be presented, in that if life is not intrinsically valuable/worthwhile, then it simply doesn"t matter morally whether they are killed in inhumane conditions or not. They are bred and they die, they no longer suffer when they die, and in fact their past suffering is annihilated at death. As such there is nothing ultimately "immoral" about killing animals in inhumane conditions since it is ultimately meaningless anyway, or a-moral. VI. Conclusion: I deeply apologise to Pro for this short round, and look forward to her arguments/rebuttals! Back to Pro! References: 1.http://benefitof.net... 2.http://www.brighthub.com... 3.http://en.wikipedia.org... 4.http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org... 5.http://www.sciencedirect.com... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. http://www.ukjerseys.com... 8. http://beefmagazine.com...