Dairy Farming is Inconsistent with Modern Western Ethical Norms

Closing Argument Con wrote: "I am saying that Western ethical norms are not ethical in the first place: there are blatant double standards with western ethical norms and the modern structure of ethical norms promotes the fact that Western ethical norms are inconsistent in nature, and the ethics are consistently coming money first. The metaethics is money-driven." Con and I seem to be in agreement that the cruelty in the dairy industry represents a double standard in Western ethical norms as these norms are internally "inconsistent". Con points out that money is given priority to concerns about cruelty. In round 1, as I was setting up the debate I said "Con must prove [the practices of the dairy industry and Western ethical norms] are consistent." Con has emphasized that Western ethics are internally inconsistent. If a thing is internally inconsistent then it could only be consistent with something else by accident. Since, as Con says, Western ethical norms are inconsistent, the practices of the dairy industry and Western ethical norms can't be consistent. Thus, Con has failed to fulfill his task of negating the resolution. Rather, he has affirmed the inconsistency and thus the resolution. That will be my closing argument. I will use the rest of this round to show why the majority of Con's arguments in round 2 were irrelevant. I will also point out where Con misrepresented my views. But first I will address the point Con made about one of my citations. Castration revisited Con wrote that citation r2.2 contradicted what I wrote. I intended the source to provide proof that various forms of mutilation were used in the veal industry. However, I put it in a place which made it appear as if it was intended to support a claim about the use of anesthetics which, in a way, did contradict what I said. So lets clarify the facts about castration and anesthetics. "In several European countries, regulations require that castration be accompanied by anesthetics and longer-term analgesics, while other countries require the use of anesthetics when castrating animals over a certain age (e.g., 2 months in the UK)."[1] So, at least there is some welfare regulation regarding some forms of castration in calves at certain ages in several Western countries. However, as no one should be surprised to learn: "Pain is inherently a part of castration and cannot be avoided. The pain of castration occurs first as acute, short-term pain associated with the actual castration procedure. Chronic pain is the longer-lasting pain that occurs in the days following castration until the injury is healed."[1] I Didn't Say That Throughout rounds 1 and 2, Con has tried to change the nature of the debate, going so far as to put words in my mouth, often in quotation marks to make it appear as if I had said these things verbatim. The following is a list of these offenses: Con said: "Cheaper meat, milk, and other goods that come from animals are non-ethical (by your definition of ethical)" I never define the word or concept "ethical". I defined the phrase "ethical norms". Con said: "If people do not find ethical irresponsibility from eating what you call ethically irresponsible meat, either" I never characterized anything as "ethically irresponsible". Con said: "If consumers stopped purchasing what you call 'inethical' produce" I never called anything "inethical" or "unethical". Con said: "and the milking practice would be to your standard." I never expressed a preference for a "standard". Con said: "When you say 'these are inethical', I'd like to know why." I never said "these are inethical" (nor "these are unethical"). Irrelevant Con brought up a number of subjects that were irrelevant to the resolution. Below, I address why they are irrelevant. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a psychological theory that makes banal claims about human valuation like: If someone is starving to death, they will not have a strong desire for self-esteem, love or morality. Even if the theory were a perfect description of human psychology, it wouldn't negate the claim that dairy farming is inconsistent with Western ethical norms since "norms" were not defined as psychological drives. Meta-ethics Con said: "the meta-ethics of the situation is blatant and required. Where do we get what is ethical or not?" The resolution concerns itself with what Westerner believe to be ethical behavior. A philosophical discussion of the true nature of ethics sheds no light on validity of the resolution. Organic Milk Con believes that the high price of organic milk negates the resolution. It doesn't. Despite the high price of organic milk, obscene practices of animal cruelty are still inconsistent with Western ethical norms (to the extent that they are internally consistent). Capitalism The remarks on capitalism were interesting but only serve to illustrate that, as explained above, Western ethical norms are internally inconsistent. Capitalism, in it's normally admirable quest to make people happy, does not neglect our need to believe that we are good people. The plain truth is that most people don't know how milk is made. It's depressing to know, contradicts preexisting beliefs and casts judgment on people's habits. Therefore, the media rarely discusses dairy production and it's well known that investigative journalist are denied access to slaughterhouses[2]. This is why footage of slaughterhouses is always made surreptitiously. 1 http://aces.nmsu.edu... 2 Eating Animals, Jonathan Safran Foer (pages 228-229)