Resolved: Sentience is of ethical relevance to the treatment of living things.

Note that my opponent concedes that sentience is not equivalent to the capacity for sentience. This will be important as an example later in the round. Theoretical FrameworkThe standard that the pro creates for himself as per the resolution is that sentience is an absolute requirement for ethical consideration. This means that in order to win this round, I simply have to provide an example of a valid ethical theory that does not take sentience into account as a requirement for ethical consideration because that would mean that if the proposed ethical theory was adopted, sentience would not be a requirement. This directly counters some of the proposed measures in the affirmative theoretical framework. First, it takes out point one, in which he claims that he does not need to have 100% certainty. He chose this resolution’s wording, so the standard I gave above is one that must be met. Note that this does not violate shared burdens because his burden is simply to explain why the ethical theory that I advanced is not an ethical theory in addition to proposing an alternative. I accept the same burden as well. Next, note that point 1, in which he argues for shared, fair burdens contradicts the unnumbered observation at the end of his theoretical framework because it is imposes an unfair burden on me. While he only needs to win one theory according to his burden analysis, I have to prove my side 100% true according to his analysis. In addition to being abusive, this contradicts the idea of shared burdens that he proposes in R1. CaseThe problem with every single ethical theory that my opponent provides is that they belong to a system of Western ethics. Western moral systems explain how to treat other rational agents, but are unable to adequately address the inherent worth of non-sentient life-forms. This void in traditional ethics is filled by the ethical theory of deep ecology. Bill Devall of Humboldt State University and George Sessions, the chairman of philosophy at Sierra College propose eight standard principles that define deep ecology. 1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital human needs.4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.5. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.6. Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes. (Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org...)The impact of this is obvious. You can vote negative off the fact that I have proposed an ethical theory that grants non-humans ethical consideration despite the fact that many are not sentient. This disproves the resolution because sentience is thus not required for ethical consideration. Affirmative CaseAs a general attack on the affirmative case, keep in mind that the ethical theories that he advances are all flawed because they only address the treatment of other moral agents. My opponent mistakes the absence of discussion of treatment of non-agents to be equivalent to the idea that non-agents do not have to be considered, but this is clearly false. As a second general attack, my opponent’s conception of sentience cannot account for the treatment two classes of individuals, namely infants and individuals who are both mentally incompetent and cannot feel pain. According to my opponent, these individual’s preferences should not be taken into account because they are not sentient, but clearly any deontological ethical theory would contend that these individuals’ interests ought to be protected as well. Thus, the ethical theories that my opponent proposes are not even adequate to address human needs. UtilitarianismFirst, several proponents of utilitarianism argue that non-sentient beings should be taken into account by ethics. (Note that animals do not fit the requirement for sentience because they are not rational and do not have preferences. ) John Stuart Mill, the most famous utilitarian philosopher writes, “It is by the grossest misunderstanding of the principles of liberty, that the infliction of exemplary punishment on ruffianism practices towards these defenseless creatures [animals] has been treated as meddling by the government . . . ” (Source: Principles of Political Economy by J. S. Mill). The impact is twofold. First, my opponent’s conception of utilitarianism is flawed as per the admission of its greatest advocate because it refuses to account for the welfare of non-sentient beings. Second, maximizing happiness of the sentient cannot be the only end goal in mind because Mill is clearly advocating for the reduction of happiness of sentient organisms in order to protect the defenseless animals. , Second, utilitarianism is a flawed ethical theory because it allows for the subjugation of the minority in favor of the majority’s happiness. This permits for the promotion of heinous actions like genocide and slavery if the majority’s happiness significantly outweighs the pain inflicted to the minority. My opponent will attempt to claim rule utilitarianism as his philosophy, but 1. Do not allow this because he did not specify this before, and 2. Rule utilitarianism simply collapses back into act utilitarianism, meaning that these problems would still exist. Ethical RationalismEthical rationalism as a whole is a flawed ethical theory because it fails to account for the fact that most ethical theories are based on emotion rather than reason. As Hume notes, “". .. morality is determined by sentiment. It defines virtue to be whatever mental action or quality gives to a spectator the pleasing sentiment of approbation; and vice the contrary. ” (Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org...). This explains why individuals are more likely to be concerned with the death of a human than that of a dog. Note that this sentiment standard does not in any way dejustify deep ecology because deep ecologists emphasize the interrelatedness of all species through the ecosystem, meaning that deep ecologists discuss the place of humans within a larger ecological context. This means that humans can relate to other species and derive moral systems that relate to their treatment. Discourse EthicsI cannot emphasize enough that his idea falls prey to the two general attacks that I gave against his theories. Please cross-apply them both here. EmotivismCross-apply the analysis that I posted in the Ethical Rationalism section; deep ecology extends this notion into the realm of other species by focusing on the fact that humans and other species both fulfill their functions and that all species are related through the context of the ecosystem. I strongly urge a negation of the resolution.