Non-humans animals should have equal rights to humans

Should be an interesting one. Looking at the comments I will for simplicities sake use the word "animal" synonymously with any non human animal. Though I believe that in reality such a distinction is morally irrelevant as I shall go onto explain. A key step in animals rights is to remove this dividing line that assumes a difference (and to some a superiority) of humans over animals. We are all animals and the title of the debate was used to get people thinking about this. Now to set out my argument. Utilitarianism holds that an action is moral if it maximises the pleasure and minimises the pain of the greatest number. Equal rights I believe is to be included equally in this 'greatest number'. If we accept this moral system then we must encompass animals. This is why. Utilitarianism is concerned only with pleasure and pain. Pleasure and pain, it is largely accepted, are (or are mirrored by) chemical reactions in the brain. Humans and non-humans share this capacity. Some humans may have a greater capacity than some animals and some animals a greater capacity than humans. Therefore it must be concluded that being a human does not make one's moral worth any greater than another animal. One may respond in several ways 1. Human pleasure and pain is different and therefore superior to any animals. 2. Humans are superior in intellect. 3. Humans are superior in a morally and rational sense. There may be others but I'll leave it at this for the moment. These responses are flawed and here is why. 1. Human pleasure and pain is different and therefore superior to an animals. Philosopher and politician J. S. Mill made the distinction between higher and lower pleasures, famously asserting that he'd rather be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. Essentially there are higher pleasures such as reading or listening to music which are greater than lower pleasures such as partaking in sexual intercourse or eating an apple. Of course animals are not capable of some of these higher pleasures. Does this mean that there is something superior about being human? I believe not. If a human could not read Shakespeare for example, should that make them less valuable than a human who can. If no then we have to conclude that the distinction between higher and lower pleasures is meaningless. If yes then the conclusion must be that not all humans are equal and there is not a significant difference between humans and animal rather just a sliding scale from those who can experience higher pleasure to those who can only experience lower pleasures. In response it could be argued that these higher pleasures bring more pleasure and minimise more pain and therefore are more important. For instance if we were able to read and enjoy reading then the more philosophy would be known to us. With this greater knowledge there would be more people working towards a more utilitarian world. I would agree with this but there is still the problem that this does not make humans per se superior to animals as not all humans meets this criteria. To accept this would mean abandoning the notion of human rights and human equality. For instance imagine we were living in the 18th century. We were driving a carriage on a narrow street alongside a pavement. You see a white man in front of you on the road. Unless you alter your course onto the pavement the carriage would with a near surety kill him. Now on the pavement is a black man. If adhering to the argument of higher pleasures being superior you would have to run over and kill the black man. In the 18th century it was far more likely for whites to experience higher pleasures than blacks. Black men were largely slaves or ex-slaves and certainly would not have access to the level of education of their white counterparts. This would mean the white man should be saved because he can read better. I'll leave you to bite the bullet here. 2. Humans are superior in intellect. This still fails as the word "human" does not require a being with a certain level of intellect. Therefore the distinction here is not between humans and animals but between those with a certain level of intellect and those without it. Depending on where you draw the line some humans will be in the group without intellect and some animals in the group with it. Think about this. If a human was born without a brain somehow, they would be human. Their DNA would match with human DNA. However, they would possess no intellect. Therefore, there is nothing special or superior about being human. I would expect my opponent to accept that this brainless human should not have superior rights to an animal. Furthermore, numerous animals, chimpanzees, parrots, pigs, crows etc. possess superior intellect to many mentally disabled humans. 3. Humans are superior in a morally and rational sense. My above arguments can also be applied here. I have another argument here which I may choose to expand if needed at a more appropriate time in the debate. To conclude, we cannot claim that humans are superior than animals on grounds of a capacity to experience higher pleasures, or a higher intellectual level or on the ability to be moral. Not all humans are capable of these and some animals are more capable of them than some humans. We now face the choice of whether we want to remove rights from the mentally disabled of humanity or give rights to animals. I opt for the latter.