Justice requires the recognition of animal rights

IntroductionThe resolution states that “justice requires the recognition of animal rights.” As Pro, my burden of persuasion is to show that, for a society to be just, it should recognize animal rights. This doesn’t mean I should show that just societies ought to recognize all animal rights, or even most of them. If I can show that justice requires the recognition of even one animal right, I win the debate. Con’s burden of persuasion, to the contrary, is to show that justice does not require the recognition of any animal rights. According to the Britannica Encyclopedia, “Animal rights [are] moral or legal entitlements attributed to nonhuman animals.” [1] Prefer this definition because of the various historical views of animal rights, many of which don’t fall into Con’s definition, but all of which fall into this definition. [1] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains, “Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions, or (not) to be in certain states; or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or (not) be in certain states.” [2] This essentially means a right is granted to a set of individuals so that they may be protected from a certain action (negative rights) or be able to perform a certain action (positive rights). As such, if a right is granted to a set of individuals, even if the purpose of the right is to benefit another group, it is still considered that set’s right. Similarly, even if animal welfare laws are created for the benefit of someone else, they are animal rights. The resolution asks us if, for a society to be truly “just,” it must recognize animal rights – so the assumed value in today’s debate is justice, defined as fairness in decision-making. The criterion, therefore, is fairness, which deems equal treatment to beings that lack morally relevant differences and in fulfilling entitlements. My arguments in today’s debate are simple: (1) recognizing the universal right against needless suffering to animals is required by justice, (2) certain animals lack morally relevant differences to humans, so any discrimination towards them is arbitrary, and therefore unjust, and (3) recognizing animal rights poses benefit emotionally and physically to humans. 1. Recognizing the right against needless pain is required by justiceThere are certain things that humans ought not to do to non-human animals. Insofar as such negative rights exist for animals, and justice requires their recognition, the resolution is affirmed. (A) Animals have an interest to avoid painPhilosopher Peter Singer explains, “Every particle of factual evidence supports the contention that the higher mammalian vertebrates experience pain sensations at least as acute as our own . . . their nervous systems are almost identical to ours and their reactions to pain remarkably similar.” [3] According to the U.S. National Research Council Committee on Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals, most vertebrates experience pain. [4] Elephants recognize themselves in mirrors, and have been known to experience post-traumatic stress disorder, indicating that they can experience trauma. [5] Pain is intrinsically undesirable. Animals have stress and trauma on experiencing pain, just like humans do, because pain is defined as an undesirable feeling. They – like humans – seek to avoid pain, and have an interest to do so. (B) Needless abuse is unjustNeedless abuse is unjust, because of the purpose of justice. Christine Korsgaard explains, “When you pity a suffering animal, it is because you are perceiving a reason. An animal's cries express pain, and they mean that there is a reason, a reason to change its conditions. And you can no more hear the cries of an animal as mere noise than you can the words of a person. Another animal can obligate you in exactly the same way another person can . . . [s]o we have obligations to animals.” [6] Essentially, if there is a reason to change the conditions of A and no reason not to, then not changing the conditions of A is unjust. The very reason human rights exist is for that. There are reasons to change conditions of suffering humans, regardless of rationality. Similarly, if there are reasons to change conditions of animals, and no reasons to not do so (i.e. the suffering being inflicted is needless), then there is a moral obligation to change the conditions of animals. As such, animals are due the right to not suffer without purpose. 2. Animals and humans lack morally relevant differencesThe only sound way to differentiate between humans and non-human animals morally is based on rationality. But there's no logical reason to believe that rationality is a criterion for rights. Currently, even those that are severely mentally enfeebled sufficient to be non-rational are granted some basic rights such as the right to life and right against torture. Similarly, animals – which are of similar mental states – should be granted such basic rights.Outside of rationality, humans and animals are essentially the same psychologically, since they are able to experience pain and pleasure – both of which are important in intuitive moral calculations. [7] Pleasure is inherently valuable in itself, since humans and animals both seek to maximize this pleasure. The same way, suffering is inherently undesirable, and both humans and animals seek to avoid it. As explained above, granting a right against needless suffering is required by justice because there is a reason to bring change to conditions of suffering and no reason not to. Since humans and animals are psychologically the same outside of rationality (and rationality isn't a sound basis for recognizing morality, because there's no reason to do so, and even animals have such subtle, unique psychological differences, e.g. stronger senses), they should all be considered individuals worthy of moral consideration. Justice is, by definition, treatment without needless discrimination. Since any such discrimination is arbitrary and there are no morally relevant differences between humans and animals, it is unjust to deny animals basic rights. 3. Recognizing animal rights has benefits to humansRecognizing some animal rights will benefit human society greatly. For instance, some animal rights (e.g., the Endangered Species Act) will have economic benefits. Extending rights to animals will also benefit human health. When a species becomes extinct, the ecosystem around it eventually falls apart. There exist "keystone species," such as lions, that are responsible for preserving ecosystems. Biodiversity loss is a driver of ecosystem change. [8] Ecosystem change will have severe adverse effects to humanity. What are the harms of ecosystem collapse? Collapsing ecosystems will result in greater carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, thus trapping further heat. Global warming is a fact, and at the current rate of global warming, the Earth could soon become uninhabitable to humans. [9] Ecological collapse could also cause mass-extinctions, outbreaks, and deprive humans of land, clean air, and food security. Not recognizing the rights of endangered animals means allowing unfettered mass extinctions, threats via climate change and ecological collapse, which is a massive harm. As such, recognizing rights of endangered species is important. As explained above, as per rights theory, even if recognizing animal rights is not done for animals, it is still a “right” to animal per the definition of that term.For these reasons, vote Pro. [1] http://www.britannica.com...[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...[3] http://www.animal-rights-library.com...[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[5] http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com...[6] Christine Korsgaard, The Sources of Normativity, p. 153[7] http://www.appliedanimalbehaviour.com...(09)00040-9/abstract?cc=y[8] http://www.connexionmonteregie.com...[9] http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org...