Veganism and Animal Rights

My goal for this round is to go over some facts: Addressing logical fallacies. The nature of most animals. The nature of human dietary needs. How the nature of animals applies to morality. As you read, keep in mind that the proper debate is whether or not veganism is the most morally correct lifestyle. My opponent and I may be arguing on further grounds, but what really matters is the conclusion of these points. 1) Addressing Logical Fallacies: My opponent is making a fairly convincing claim; however, in order to prove it we need proof, not a compelling story. The current fallacy is an appeal to emotion. If we imagine an animal that we're attached to, then of course, it seems wrong. If we anthropomorphise (attributing human characteristic to non-human things [1]) it's easy to take this view. However, we need an actual study of animals and morality in order to make a proper decision. We should also avoid having an outcome bias. This is a logical fallacy where we disagree with something simply because we disagree with the outcome of that belief. If anything I say is distasteful, please keep in mind that does not make it wrong. My job is to prove that these animals are literally inferior to humans, and the emotional response to the consequences of those facts should not determine whether or not you agree wtih my argument. 2) Animal Nature and Emotions: There's a few things I'll need to address concerning animal behavior. One is the nature of the brain (emotional side especially), and another is the predator/prey relationship. a. Often times animals seem to exhibit human emotions. If you watch the video about the Gallapagos Albatross in my 2nd source [2] you will see behavior that looks to be almost romantic. They mate for life, they have a highly specific dance they do to find a partner, and they even caress. However, even the people who study these animals recognize that it's all in the interest of strong continuation of the species. To be specific to the animals in question, I'm going to specifically analyze chickens and cows. Going forward, there are a few things that we need to clarify: The amygdala is the part of your brain that processes "reflex" emtions, like fear and anxiety. The cingulate gyrus is the part of the brain that processes conscious emotions. Let's look at the chicken. A chicken's brain is practically incapable of complex thought. It's cerebrum is smooth, which means its processing complexity is minimal [3]. While they have a large amount of instincts stored in there that may seem behavioral, the chicken itself does not "feel" anything, nor does it associate something like pain or discomfort as an emotional state. The chicken just has the instinct to get to a different state. A cow has a slightly more complex brain. However, I looked as much as I could and couldn't find evidence of a cingulate gyrus in a cow. I found an amygdala, but even the amygdala is signficiantly less complex than a rat's amygdala in certain ways [4]. The cow does not associate any fear or pain with a conscious emotion. The fear is as emotional to them as it is to us when we touch a hot surface and our hand pulls away immediately. If you can remember something like that, you may remember a small but distinct fear present, while your mind was otherwise devoid of emotion related to the incident. b. While killing is something that tends to go against the natural moral compass, predator/prey relationships are quite healthy for the environment. Situations where a prey group like rabbits or deer become too populated in one area, their food source diminishes, and disease can wipe out a majority of the population. This is why something like bow hunting for deer in cities is an environmentally friendly practice. This is especially important in cities where human population has driven away most of the natural predators. If the deer are not preyed on, they will die out naturally, and it won't take more than a couple years. This, to me, is the best way to get meat. Hunting is natural, and it truly upholds the balance of predator/prey relationships that the environment needs. Unfortunately, the human population is incredible in number, and we need something like a factory to give us enough food to survive. We don't hurt the actual population of livestock that occur naturally. We simply breed an animal that we would naturally prey on for food. 3) The Nature of Human Dietary Needs: While plants and vegetables are an important part of a human's diet, humans have nutritional needs that are difficult to meet without meat. Yes, it is possible to acquire all of the proper aminos in order to create a complete protein without using meat. However, it is neither efficient nor cheap. Most things that a vegan or vegetarian eats do not contain the essential amino acids [5]. In this source (from the Harvard School of Public Health), we learn that eating foods like fish and chicken are an excellent way to get the complete amino acids needed for a full protein. They also recommend that certain beans and nuts can be added to help out. Aside from that, meat carries high levels of iron, which a vegetarian would have to make up for with more spinach than usual or something of the sort. The meals would actually have to be quite large and expensive to keep up with the needs of the body. However, while the article focuses on attacking red meat, it does recognize that vegetarians and vegans have to do their research. And remember that vegetables are often times more expensive than meat is, especially during the winter. Low-income families need to eat too, and the people my opponent would wish to put out of business are among the few who feed them. 4) How the Nature of Animals Applies to Morality: Now we have to tie this back into moral obligation, because that seemed to be the intent of the debate. Do humans have a moral obligation to be vegans? Most moral systems as of yet do not account for how humans and animals interact as moral creatures. Especially with animals who definitely do not possess an emotional or personal state. Rationally, we cannot assume that a cow would identify with a name or that a name would be something other than anthropomorphism by the owner. I argue that these animals are incapable of personal identity as of now, and they will continue to be devoid of personhood. The facts don't let us assume much more than that. I've found plenty of blogs and such talking about how these animals "appear" to have emotions or friends, but keep in mind the actual brain chemistry of these animals. No matter what we project onto them, we cannot add things to their brains that do not exist there. So a human relates to these animals in the same way that a human relates with other food sources. It is food, it is okay that it's food, and it doesn't care that it's food. Instinctive behavioral patterns do not identify an animal as a sentient, self-aware person. Thank you for reading. Sources: [1] . https://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] [3] Harley, J. P. , & Miller, S. A. "Zoology. " 7th Edition. 2007. McGraw-Hill Companies. Pages 414-415. [4] . http://tinyurl.com... (page 86) [5] . https://www.hsph.harvard.edu...