It should be considered morally wrong to kill sentient animals, without consent, for their meat

My opponent has specifically denied that he wishes the subject of the debate to be limited to humans' killing other sentient animals. Therefore, my opponent is arguing the proposition that "it should be considered morally wrong [for anyone, NOT JUST HUMANS] to kill sentient animals, without their consent, for their meat." Contention 1: Anthropomorphism. My opponent claims that animals ought to be held by moral standards. This argument is extremely problematic because it anthropomorphises non-human animals. Anthropomorphism refers to the tendency of humans to improperly interpret the intentions of non-human animals to be human-like in nature. This tendency is extremely problematic, because it assumes that human values, emotions, and ideas are universal, when in fact this is not the case. By pretending that animals are humans, the true needs of the animals are ignored. For example, by assuming that certain domesticated animals ought to be "free," humans often ignorantly place animals in the wild that are incapable of defending themselves and suffer a quick death. It is this type of ignoring of the actual needs and communications of the animals that has allowed the maltreatment of animals in the first place. Chickens are another example of the evils of humans' anthropomorphising animals: While humans often assume that free-roaming chickens are not suffering (because if they were humans they wouldn't be suffering), in fact their bodies have been selectively bred to grow so large that they are literally in massive pain for their entire adult lives before they eventually die from the fatness [1]. Making a nonhuman animal follow the humans' idea of "morality" is utterly ridiculous, and quite problematic. Morality is a human-made concept developed by human philosophers. Non-human animals often have entirely distinctive social patterns, completely unlike humans. While rats and bees are very social animals, for example, beta fish are loners. Anthropomorphising animals as if they all had the same social ideals as humans can lead humans to ignorantly put animals in unnatural environments. Contention 2: Anthropomorphism Part 2: Carnivores. Lions are one example of animals that have a different social style than humans, though not entirely unrelated. The pride of lions is their "pride" (or pack) [2]. Lions, unlike humans, must eat meat in order for them to survive and for their families to survive [2, 3]. It would be ridiculous for humans to hold lions accountable to humans' own style of morality when lions kill their prey in order to feed their children. Humans have a unique social position in the animal kingdom. Humans have to ability to choose whether or not to eat meat: Placing the same burdens on lions would be incredibly egotistical and ignorant; lions do not have the same structure or social choices as humans. Having humans believe that all lions are morally wrong when they eat would make humans have a grudge against them, which is problematic because when humans have a grudge against an animals they are usually proficient at slaughtering the same, and lions are already in a precarious ecological position: if poaching laws were relaxed (which is one possibility if humans begin thinking that lions are immoral) they could become extinct, which is certainly a moral wrong. Snakes are also carnivores, and have even less of a human-like society. It would be ignorant and improper to assume that snakes should be held to morality, which is a thoroughly human invention. Contention 3: Animal Ignorance: Arguments such as these is one reason why many persons ignorantly are opposed to nonhuman animal rights. They assume that animal activists are nutcases who do not understand the necessity of many animals to eat meat. They assume that vegetarianism/veganism is unnatural on this basis. This is completely not the case; in fact, vegetarianism/veganism is a very natural and healthy choice. However, by saying that carnivorous animals are subject to the same moral evaluation, my opponent continues the myth that animals rights is against the "Circle of Life" so to speak. Such a dialogue is bad for the animal rights cause that my opponent professes to protect; therefore his entire case ought to be rejected in favor of protecting animals in a more natural way, such as stopping the _human_ atrocities instead of holding nonhuman animals to impossible and thoroughly human standards. Conclusion Thus, while it may be immoral for humans to kill sentient beings for their meat, for other species it is sometimes a necessary way of life. My opponent is speciesist in that he assumes that the social values of humans are superior to that of nonhuman animals, and that therefore animals ought to comply to human standards. This anthropomorphic tendency has been the cause of a lot of nonhuman animal suffering, and even would threaten species were it this value system be universally applied to all animals, as my opponent suggests it should be. My opponents arguments are not only bad for animals directly, but also bring about ignorance about the vegetarian/vegan/animal rights movements by suggesting a thoroughly unnatural and ignorant stance on behalf of nonhuman animals. Thanks for reading! Thanks also for a great debate, as usual Caploxion! Sources: [1] http://www.farmsanctuary.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...