CreateDebate


Debate Info

17
6
Keep them in the ghetto. Train them to Auschwitz!
Debate Score:23
Arguments:18
Total Votes:30
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Keep them in the ghetto. (11)
 
 Train them to Auschwitz! (5)

Debate Creator

14giraffes(87) pic



Is Killing Animals to EAT them Morally Acceptable Behavior?

How is the mass killing of animals in the food industry morally accpetable since animals have both intelligence and personality? isn't the food industries massive slaughter program almost just as deplorable as what Hitler did to the Jews? especially if humans are "just animals" who have "evolved" from "lower spieces" and are therefore "interrelated". On the other side, If killing animals is bad, how do you drawl the line? Should we saver the little bugs? ...are they my friends?

Keep them in the ghetto.

Side Score: 17
VS.

Train them to Auschwitz!

Side Score: 6

Personally, I draw the line at sentience. I fail to see how the consumption of non-sentient animals can be compared to the genocide of Jews (sentient). That being said, the conditions of many of these operations are horrible, and we should take steps to prevent undue suffering and harm to said animals, even if they are being bred for slaughter.

Side: Keep them in the ghetto.
14giraffes(87) Clarified
3 points

What makes you think that they are non-sentient? What about mentally retarded people in Hitler's program? are they non-sentient, even if they have such a low level of awareness? those lines get fuzzy the more you think about them.

Side: Keep them in the ghetto.
IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
1 point

What makes me think that they are non-sentient is that even the most liberal of conclusions regarding intelligence in the species that we tend to consume (conclusions that I support, by the way) has not shown any evidence of sentience. On the other hand, mentally handicapped individuals generally maintain a level of sentience, even if it is hampered. I do not see the lines becoming fuzzy at all: Humans, as a species that has sentience, should not be killed in such conditions. Indeed I would hold that species we are not yet sure about (such as dolphins and many primates) should not either. Now I may recognize that pigs and cows are capable of a far larger emotional range than many are familiar with, which is why I believe they should be kept in far better conditions than they generally are. I simply do not see anything immoral with killing them for the purposes of non-wasteful consumption, so long as they are not kept in painful/traumatic conditions. This is why I support and buy almost all of my meat from small-scale local farms, where I can see the conditions that they are kept in and know that the farmer (or rancher) does not neglect or abuse them during the process.

Side: Keep them in the ghetto.
2 points

Right now i'm ideally more on the side of saving the animals, but i haven't been able to bring that to actualization in my daily life for some stupid reason.

Krishnamurti: Killing and Vegetarianism
Side: Keep them in the ghetto.
2 points

Some land animal species are carnivores and others vegetarian. In the debate as to which we are predominant we fortunately have the choice.

If we are destined to eat meat we should rear and kill animals in a humane manner, however, research has recently grown edible meat in the laboratory so by the end of the century or earlier we may not need to kill animals for our food and the question of morally acceptable behaviour will not arise.

Side: Keep them in the ghetto.

That would certainly be ideal, though if I remember correctly the first edible sample of lab grown meat was considered very...let's say poor in flavor.

Side: Keep them in the ghetto.
2 points

Yes I agree, but the texture was right. So lets be honest in saying that a lot of "foods" are "poor in flavour" unless we "add value" to them.

What would peanut butter taste like without being roasted and salt added, what would jam taste like without sugar, what would chips taste like if they were not deep fried and etc etc.

I am sure that whist this research is in its early days, that within a few years they will be producing an eye fillet with a pepper or mushroom sauce that tastes just as good as the original.

It is in the interests of food security in a growing population where live animal production, transport and processing is unreliable economically. So the researchers will just keep trying until they produce a successful steak.

Side: Keep them in the ghetto.
1 point

I think it's morally acceptable if animals kill and eat us....because we all deserve to be eaten alive, or any other means of death....

So if you really want to try to even things out in the world, why not junp into a pen full of starving hogs?

Side: Keep them in the ghetto.
1 point

LIFE-the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. (i can't agree with this personally, but at least it doesn't just state itself)

killing life to eat and survive is the only way possible to survive. if not sentient animals, then 'non-sentient' animals, if not animals, then plants. the only way to avoid killing to eat is to produce your own sustenance. this idea, at least at present is impossible, and so far only plants have managed it, by being parasite to the sun (which with a looser definition we may even consider that alive). realistically, avoiding killing to eat is impossible. even where you gain without killing, you remove potential for life. (the nutrients in those nuts were intended for the seed to grow) even plants that use humans and other animals to reproduce only do so from an evolutionary heritage that forcibly inclines toem to do so. if we evolved to please a superior race that surpassed ours, could you call that fair? consensual?

anyway, line completely crossed. make a new one. call it sentience, or being self aware or whatever. lets say we don't eat these animals in particular.

i assume in an earlier time it was eat to survive and eat whatever is in front of you. i think we have only recently raised ideas of preserving sentience or life, and it is only recently we have let out our empathy and compassion to creatures so different from ourselves. (even though we still struggle extending empathy to some of our own, which is odd)

i think food has become a central part of culture, and being a daily part of our lives, many do not want their habits and/or traditions to change. removing or even challenging anything so deeply ingrained into almost every culture is difficult, even if it's spurred by our own changes in moral principles. sure, there are vegetarians, pescatarians and those unwilling to eat animals they have relations with. (just as im sure there were also those who were accepting or passive towards other cultures or human races), but towards widespread agreement, i think even changing our diet to non-sentient animals would require far more effort than exhibited by all human rights activists ever.

Side: Train them to Auschwitz!
0 points

Yes, it's been going on since time immemorial. In the animal world, which includes us, carnivores have been killing their respective prey and eating them since the dawn of time. In many cases, as with the prey of the Komodo Dragon, whilst they're still alive. Due to the superior intelligence of mankind we, just the same as ants also do, have developed animal farming techniques to meet the demand of the expanding human population. I make absolutely no apology whatsoever for enjoying a medium done big fat juicy steak, or some tender chicken, or a nice rack of lamb. I don't give a tinker's damn how they reached my table, just as long as my grub is sitting in front of me to enjoy. You can wallow in the quagmire your unnatural feelings self righteous of guilt if you wish, but keep your hangups to yourself.

Side: Train them to Auschwitz!
-1 points

The intelligence and personality of the chicken we eat is so minuscule compared to humans that it is ridiculous to say they have enough to not be eaten.

Side: Train them to Auschwitz!
JavaScript(30) Disputed
1 point

What does intelligence have to do with living rights?

Furthermore, you cannot compare intelligence of a chicken to that of a human as they are two entirely different intelligence complexes. What, they aren't intelligent because they cannot do calculus? Chimps share 98% of our DNA and yet, cannot do half of the things we can. The reason why is because although they are our cousins, they are still a different subspecies of apes. Therefore they function in a way different from us to best suit their environment.

Side: Keep them in the ghetto.