The consumption of meat is ethically wrong

Restrictions on Animals "I’m not arguing that any life is necessary... impositions, is unethical." There is a clear difference between imposing restrictions on humans and imposing them on other sentient life. Humanity, as a species, is capable of understanding what type of life we would enjoy having the most. Just as in your example with Joseph Fritzl, the girl is capable of knowing what life would better for herself. When it comes to a chicken in a pen, or a cow in a field, do you really think this is parallel? If the chicken was in the wild, it would still not have the intellectual capabilities to understand that it is having a more or less desirable life than if they were kept in that pen. The cow, if not in the farm field, would still eat grass and live life just as it would in the wild. A difference is food would probably be harder to come by, and there is a risk of getting eaten by a predator, creating a lot more pain that what would have been created in a farm. This isn't desirable to animals. This distinction allows for us to ethically keep sentient creatures in captivity, so long as they are not put into more suffering than they would be in if they were "free". Again, most animals are not capable of understanding freedom as we do. The Existence of Happiness "My opponent then argues that there is nothing.. Depravation then fulfilment." The mechanism in which we attain happiness is irrelevant to the happiness gained in life. The idea that happiness comes from depravation then fulfillment doesn't change what we should base our ethics on. I disagree that happiness is a "less bad" state, rather than a good state. The very definition of happiness is a state of well-being and contentment.(1) There is not a "less bad" state in this state. That bad state is nonexistent in that instance of happiness, or at the least not noticeable. "As you can hopefully see... There is no “net benefit”, there is less suffering." The creature would indeed be suffering. If the 100/200 days of suffering actually did pay off in a net benefit, then it would be worth the suffering. You are again focusing on the animal only, as opposed to everyone affected by the process. If the net happiness was maximized from that 100 days of suffering, then it is ethical. You claim there is no net benefit, there is only less suffering. Even if happiness was just an illusion, is less suffering not a net benefit? I would expect you to support having an overall less net suffering in all animals, including our species. If less suffering was created by me eating an animal than if I didn't eat the animal, it is ethically justifiable. "Happiness is not the opposite... Happiness is based purely on relativity, the reality is simply ‘less bad’." Happiness is certainly not based purely on relativity. Happiness comes from a chemical reaction in the brain, which results from the stimulation your senses. This is also the case with suffering. This is a photo of a synapse, which is a structure that permits a neuron to pass an electrical or chemical signal to another cell. It illustrates how these emotions are transferred in the brain. All the emotions we've ever had is a result of neurotransmitters. Neurotransmitters are endogenous chemicals that transmit signals from a neuron to a target cell across a synapse. The only direct action of neurotransmitters is to activate receptors. One neurotransmitter actions is dopamine. Dopamine affects brain processes that control movement, emotional response, and ability to experience pleasure and pain.(2) It is also responsible for the brain's reward system. Other actions involved with pain and suffering include substance P and opioid peptides.(3) As you can see, suffering and happiness are not merely relative. They are actual things, with a lot of science put into the study of them. The chemical reactions which make up these emotions prove that happiness isn't just less suffering, it's something completely different. Whether one feels happiness or suffering depends on which neurotransmitter is being released in the brain. Zero-Sum Apocalypse "With this in mind, the best you could ever do is remove every depravation. This is called a ‘zero-sum equation’..." The zero-sum equation is a poor model for ethics, as its eventual goal is the complete removal of suffering. This brings me back to my point in the last round, where I stated that the only way to completely remove suffering is by ending all sentient life on Earth. I hope you agree that removing suffering should not be the goal. The goal should be to maximize the net amount of happiness in life. "Since it’s almost non-negotiable that suffering is bad.... it’s not just the suffering involved." I conceded that suffering on its own is bad, but it is never on its own in reality. Like I said, the girl didn't know better, but she is capable of knowing. The animal is not intellectually developed like the girl. It doesn't understand freedom, nor rights. "We, as humans, are animals. We share sentience and the ability to feel... should be ethically obliged to prevent it altogether." Intelligence is a relevant distinction when it comes to having the right from being imposed upon. Suffering is justified with a net happiness. Speciesism "speciesism is rampant among humans because of this relativistic tendency (or a belief in God)..." Not all people in support of speciesism believes in a personal god. I explained in round one why I am a speciest. Animals don't deserve inherent rights because the holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all, including themselves. Does this mean we should be free to do whatever we want with animals? No. It means that we can take a utilitarian approach in determining the ethics of our interactions with other animals. Utilitarianism being a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, specifically defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. Conclusion "Considering that human survival has no purpose... consumption of animals is ethically wrong." Whether or not human survival has a purpose or value, it doesn't change how we should determine what is ethical. Ethics demands that we create a code of conduct which creates the best world we could possibly have. We have a decision to make. Do we base our ethics on eliminating as much suffering as we can, or do we base it on creating a maximum amount of net happiness? We already know where the first philosophy would lead us. It would lead to a world without the existence of humanity, and if we really kept to the philosophy, it would lead to the extinction of all sentient life on Earth. You never responded to my doomsday scenario to eliminate suffering, but I surely hope you don't think it is an ethically justifiable thing to do. Now we think of what the latter philosophy will bring us and all life. It will lead to a world of scientific, technological, and philosophical progress. It will lead to a world where human suffering will continue to diminish worldwide, and the pursuit of happiness will be a universal right for all people. This philosophy will encourage people to treat all sentient beings with due respect, and only allow for impositions which could be justified from a net benefit from those impositions. Needless animal torture will always be illegal, and animal abuse will never be allowed. This is the world I believe is the most ethically sound, and the most desirable. Though this debate has gone way beyond the topic at hand, I believe all of it has made it clear that animal suffering is justified from the net happiness it can create. I hope I convinced you and anyone that reads this that this is the best argument for the ethicality of the consumption of meat.Sources 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://www.utexas.edu... 3. http://courses.washington.edu...