Argument from Simmons:

1. Raising and killing animals to eat them harms animals (AND human beings).
2. It is not necessary to raise and kill animals to eat them: we can live happy and healthy lives without eating animals.
3. If an action causes harms that are not necessary, then that action is wrong.
4. Eating meat is wrong: it’s wrong to raise and kill animals to eat them.

A report we looked at today:
United Nations:

Livestock a major threat to environment

Remedies urgently needed

29 November 2006, Rome - Which causes more greenhouse gas emissions, rearing cattle or driving cars?

According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html

It’s traditional.

All traditions are MP. F

Therefore, eating meat is morally permissible.

It’s necessary. F

Therefore, eating meat is morally permissible.

People make $ at it. T

Any way to make $ is MP.

Therefore, eating meat is morally permissible.

Animals provide protein. T

If x provides protein then it’s MP to eat X. F

Therefore, eating meat is morally permissible.

Animals taste good!                                                                     Eat animals produces pleasure.

Anything tastes good is MP to eat. F

Therefore, eating meat is morally permissible.

Some Animals eat other animals.  

Any action that animals do is permissible for us to do. /

If animals do X, then it’s permissible for us to do X. F

Therefore, our eating meat is morally permissible.