It should be considered morally wrong to kill sentient animals for their meat

I concede the debate mid-way through my response. However, I offer rebuttals for arguments that I think are weak. Euthanasia-meat “Under certain circumstances, aiding in one's death may be morally admirable, or at least not morally wrong. One such admirable circumstance is allowing one to die immediately rather than living a few extra weeks in order to benefit one's family or friends. Allowing oneself to die sooner in order to save their family potentially millions of dollars.” This is not to kill a sentient creature for his/her meat. “In an extra step of selflessness, one may wish to donate her body for the sustenance of others. This step may be justified for several reasons: for one thing, one ought to be able to do with one's body what one will.” Yes, in an extra step, one may wish to donate. But, as to the reason for killing herself, this is only an afterthought, rather than the reason for killing herself. “Calling the eating of one's body after death a "moral wrong" is ethnocentric, rejecting a particular cultural acceptance of eating human flesh for the classic European disgust of the same.” We’re not arguing as to what is ethical in some cultures; morality, in this case, is founded via logical framework. “In fact, giving up one's body is a brave decision, and allowing others to be benefited after death is an example of moral bravery. Jesus effectively allowed himself to be killed to benefit others according to the Christian/literary tradition: Most would agree that this was a moral right. Allowing oneself to die quickly (killing oneself, a sentient being) for meat in this case is an example of moral goodness.” Jesus didn’t die so that he can be eaten; this isn’t relevant to the debate. Starvation: “If one were to kill oneself in order to use one's body to save a starving friend, she/he would be doing a moral good.” I think that this is a sufficient argument which I cannot overcome – I concede this debate. I will fix my resolution so that there is a consent clause, otherwise these kind of arguments will force a loss. I wanted to see if there was a way to argue round this, but I can’t think of anything other than using word games and straw-mans. I will continue to offer rebuttals to the rest of my opponent’s arguments, as I think that some of them are ill-founded. Basically, I think that if you consent to be eaten for your meat, then killing for your meat would be moral – I have no worthwhile counter-argument to this. Ignorance: “I would not hold a child responsible for eating meat in a culture that condones eating meat.” Eating meat =/= killing for the meat “This is the same for adults who never encounter animal rights arguments.” It should be considered morally wrong for… meaning that it isn’t for various reasons, but it should be seeing as it is logical. “Thus, these persons' eating meat should not be considered a moral wrong but an unfortunate act of ignorance that ought to be remedied through education.” It is a moral wrong regardless, and my arguments do not imply that we blame them for not knowing, rather that we label their actions as morally wrong. Moral Right/Wrong “If one group of people is "right" and the other is "wrong" (deviant), then one set of social values is raised above all others.” It is through doing the moral thing that, in that instance, you are moral. It is not that a group of people are moral by default, rather that they do moral things, hence the label. This is not “subscribing to only particular cultural norms”, rather it is subscribing to moral framework that is logically consistent. I think you are confusing ‘ethics’ with ‘morals’, in that ethics are cultural norms, whilst morals are not necessarily. “Notice that my exceptions still minimize suffering, and actually seems to create a better world than the kind my opponent advocates.” The resolution involves evaluating the moral imperative of avoiding the killing of sentient creatures for their meat, not the suffering; the suffering is a reason for the moral imperative, but it is not the moral imperative itself. I concede