March Beginners Tournament: Animal Rights

Thanks, terjetics! Ethics and Reason Actually this debate is not really about needless suffering per se. Obviously, no person with a shred of empathy will argue that animals should be subject to needless suffering. The purpose of this debate is to determine if animals should have rights, and how we should go about determining criteria. Pro advocates all animals which have a spine should have rights. Why not go all the way and claim all animals should have rights? The answer lies in the fact that if we give rights to all animals then it devalues the notion of rights altogether. If a mosquito or flea has a right to life as I do, then I would be morally wrong to squash it when it is deriving life from my blood. It causes me very little suffering and they must have it to survive, so for the greater good, I must bear the inconvenience for the sake of another lifeform. Pro avoids this dilemna by arbitrarily claiming ‘it must have a spine’. Why? What makes animals with a spine more deserving of rights than those without? By drawing a line at vertebrates he disallows animals which are sentient and intelligent, such as octopi, simply because their anatomy is different than animals he recognizes as related. His explanation for this line in the sand comes from his ignorance of how non vertebrates can suffer and discriminates arbitrarily assuming it is not important or that they cannot feel pain. By the very act of trying to determine what characteristics mandate rights we are discriminating against some life form (whether intentional or not). Pro eliminates animals by their physical traits and gives no thought to their ability. I advocate adding animals on the basis of rationality. Let us consider a hypothetical situation: Mankind finally realizes we are not alone in the universe, and there is life out there after all; However, we learn they are sentient rational and insectoid (uh oh, no spine!!), by Pro’s logic they are not deserving of rights. By my logic, they would automatically have rights. Thus, I feel rationality is a better way to determine rights rather than physical traits. We have seen the effects of determining value based on arbitrary differences, and this type of thinking has brought about things such as slavery and the Crusades. Essentially, Pro is advocating a much higher degree of discrimination than I could ever hope to achieve by my delineation of rationality. In addition to this, the rational mind is responsible for the concept of rights to begin with, so it is reasonable that rational minds (or minds with the potential for rationality) should enjoy those rights. Some of Pro’s arguments would have the rational mind losing rights to animals (see micro dosing below), and this is absurd. We must do what is in our best interest by way of hunting, population control, and as necessary -animal testing, while weighing the cost to possible benefits (to us and animals) of such actions. Hunting Pro suggests humans have no right to protect themselves and the animal population is worse off by population control. While the individual animals killed do not benefit, the general population benefits by more chances for food, more chances for mates, and due to less competition there is less need for animals to venture into areas inhabited by humans (and their cars). Depending on the species, it might only benefit humans by lowering the odds of negative encounters with that species of animal, but the animal population stands to benefit in many ways (listed above). Also, if a human wanders out onto the Serengeti, then (s)he will likely be killed for meat, or possibly because (s)he has encroached upon an animal’s territory. So, population control goes both ways. In addition to this, an ecosystem which is out of whack can cause mass extinctions. For example, Boa constrictors have recently invaded the everglades, and without the intervention of humans, other indigenous species may go extinct. Too few or too many predators can drastically affect other species in the food chain. Hunting can help reaquire that equilibrium. Vegetarianism My opponent has not considered primitive nomadic societies where killing animals is necessary for sustenance. Money is often a foreign concept, and bartering is commonly the only form of trade. Certainly, veganism is beyond the means of such peoples, and is not feasible. I cite the Kalahari bushmen as a single example of many such hunter gatherer societies and a description of the necessity for hunting is described below. “Early spring is the hardest season: a hot dry period following the cool, dry winter. Most plants still are dead or dormant, and supplies of autumn nuts are exhausted. Meat is particularly important in the dry months when wildlife can not range far from the receding waters.” [1] That is one example of how veganism is expensive, but I’m sure Pro was considering something more along the lines of 1st world problems. So, after a brief search, I found a very interesting article comparing the difference in cost between an organic diet and a vegan diet. “According to Mint.com, I spend an average of $375 on food each month. Before I went vegan, I insisted on eating only meat and dairy products that were certified humane, hormone-free, grass fed, and locally raised…in other words, extremely expensive. Still, my average food bill was lower: $270 a month.” [3] Pre-clinical trials First off, I would like to point out Pro’s entire Pre-clinical trials section is almost completely copied and pasted from his second source. He has presented no understanding of his own. I encourage the voters to consider this when awarding conduct points.In addition to this, Pro has provided 'gish gallop' by giving no explanation to these alternatives while expecting me to spend significantly more time (and characters) responding than he did to sunmit them. That being said, all of these alternatives, with exception of micro-dosing (we'll cover that below), are not systemic tests. Non systemic tests are not adequate to replace techniques which reveal the delicate interactions between systems in a living body. They can be used to supplement and reduce the number of animals used, but they cannot replace the results that can only be yielded through animal testing. Some of these methods are simply not a viable alternatives even overlooking their non-systemic nature. Some rely on technology that is not completely developed or is simply not adequate in every situation. "The main obstacle is still the difficulty of accurately mimicking the complex physiological systems of whole living organisms—a challenge that will be hard to meet.” [2]For instance, the ability to mimic specific organs does not imitate the whole organ and especially not the whole-body system. As far as the simulations go, they are almost entirely focused on direct interactions. Most of what happens in the humans body is not directly interacting, thus this is a significant problem. Interestingly, Pro mentions Micro-dosing , which utilizes very small doses to see how they move around the human body. Micro dosing is considered a “phase 0” study. This is interesting because a phase 0 study requires pre-clinical trials (animal testing) to determine what the floor safety is, or in other words, to determine what is a micro dose. Phase 0 (micro-dosing) is at most supplemental, and cannot be considered an alternative to preclinical trials."Phase 0 trials bridge the gap between traditional preclinical testing and clinical studies.."[4] So basically, Pro is advocating human testing in addition to animal testing. Again, I question Pro’s consistency. How is testing on a human animal in addition to animal testing any better than just testing on animals? Presumably, if he has an issue with animal testing then he should argue against all animal testing. However, he does not and, in fact, advocates for it in two times in this case. I encourage the voters to consider how Pro is contradicting his own position here. In addition to this, As the only one of the bunch which is systemic, micro-dosing is limited to supplementary evaluation of cellular responses. To determine the dangers/benefits of a particular drug we cannot limit ourselves to cellular responses or any other isolated systems. We need to test full body systems and the interaction between systems to truly understand the possible effects. As I said in my last round, there is no substitute for a live test subject. I acknowledge there are flaws in pre-clinical trials, but all the other methods mentioned are simply worse for evaluating the effect on whole body systems, and thus it would be more dangerous. Back to you, Pro! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[3] http://thebillfold.com...[4] file:///C://sers/owner/Downloads/OAJCT-32978-phase-0-clinical-trials--theoretical-and-practical-implicati_1016131.pdf