Moral Argument: Meat Eating

Thank you. -- Rebuttals -- 1. Is my argument weak or is my example weak? They are different. My argument is that a necessity is not the only thing that makes something moral, and my example is that cars, for instance, are not essential, but we use them. Of course, I am not comparing cars to animals at all. I merely use an example to support and strengthen my argument. Moving on, even if animals have to suffer so that we can eat them, there is nothing wrong with it. Lions eat gazelles, anacondas eat birds, etcetera. It is natural, and we humans have every right to make use of this natural right, too. 2. If a person lives an unhealthy life, such as not sleeping enough, not being active, not eating healthy food, etcetera, then a great move toward vegetarianism does help that person a lot in choosing to live a healthier life in other aspects than food only. If one can give up meat for the sake of his health, then it usually takes other things into the whole process, too. Of course, there might be exceptions; it might be that studies suggest that vegetarians are healthier in general terms, but I do not see a conclusion yet whatsoever. Eating a lot of vegetables is not equivalent to eating a lot of meat, and a lot of meat is not very good. However, if people who eat meat do that in moderate amounts, then I think that we will not see significant differences between meat eaters and vegetarians. And there a lots of advices on how to eat meat in healthy ways: http://archive.supermarketguru.com... http://health.usnews.com... http://www.meatami.com... 3. Excuse me, but my natural instincts tell me that I do need meat, despite your disagreement. Of course, I do not have an "essential" need for meat consumption, but some people actually do, especially those who need proteins due to protein deficiencies, for instance. Meat might be their only available medicine. Moving on, the dog example is weak. First and foremost, I do not eat dogs nor does my religion permit the meat of dog for consumption at all. However, if we replace dog with cow, then my answer to the question is 'yes.' I do think that it is moral to kill the cow and consume it, because I need to survive. There is no difference between killing a cow and killing a plant. I am sorry if that contradicts outdated science. In regard to factory farms, I must say that my opponent wasted time and character space writing that. I know that demand is important, and my argument is clearly that demand of meat is moral and there should be no prohibition on it. I have no need of protesting against meat consumption. However, I am against mistreatment of animals, as long as it is possible to treat them well. But eating them is moral, because humans need to eat something to survive - and plants are alive, thank you. 4. "Wrong!" Excuse me, but I am right. My opponent, very unfortunately, makes a horribly immoral and improper implication that just because something does not scream, it is not wrong to kill it. It is mendacious. There is no excuse to such a claim. What if a person is born deafblind, and is paralyzed on his face? What if he suffers from several disorders which makes it hard to see how much the person suffers even if he does not show many signs of suffering? Is it moral to mistreat such an unfortunate person? Of course not. Then why do we need to hear plants cry in order to feel sympathy for them? Yes, we might not be used to new scientific facts, but such is reality. Plants to suffer, and just because you do not see them cry with the naked eye or do not want to acknowledge the fact that they cry is your own problem. Also, plants do have a specific nervous system. "Although plants are generally immobile and lack the most obvious brain activities of animals and humans, they are not only able to show all the attributes of intelligent behaviour but they are also equipped with neuronal molecules, especially synaptotagmins and glutamate/glycine-gated glutamate receptors. Recent advances in plant cell biology allowed identification of plant synapses transporting the plant-specific neurotransmitter-like molecule, auxin. This suggests that synaptic communication is not limited to animals and humans but seems to be widespread throughout plant tissues." http://ds9.botanik.uni-bonn.de... Further references: Plants have feelings: http://www.collegian.psu.edu... and http://www.uncoveror.com... Plants cry: http://www.canada.com... and http://www.livescience.com... Unfortunately, my opponent dismisses very important scientific research, and makes a very immoral argument regarding the feelings of plants. I see no reason why we should kill plants and eat them, but treat animals perfectly well, such as by not consuming them. Plants have feelings and can even cry, then what more do we need to look for? Do we need to see them grow brains and tell us that they are alive, when modern scientific research shows that they are? Just because they are different makes it no less moral to consume them in preference to consuming animals. Yes, it is saddening when an animal is mistreated, but plants can also be mistreated. They are different, but reality does surprise us. Thank you.