Animal Rights

This debate is centered around how humans and animals should interact. Do humans have the moral right to use animals as a resource as they choose? Or are animals free beings with the right to live their lives individually sans humans. In order to justify the oppression of animals by humans, humans need to establish that they have greater moral worth than animals. But, as I will show with my Argument from Marginal Cases, this is not so. OV1-My arguments’ conclusions will be that humans are morally obligated to grant animals rights. Although this is not the same wording as the resolution, it means the same. As defined in R1, justice is doing the just thing. Just being what is morally right or fair. So doing what is morally right, is doing what is just. And as I will show, in order to do what is morally right, we are obligated to grant animals rights. Argument from Marginal Cases1) In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no animals deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some property P that all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.2) Any P that only human beings have is a property that (some) human beings lack (e.g., the marginal cases).3) Any P that all human beings have is a property that (most) animals have as well.4) Therefore, there is no way to defend the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status.5) Animals also deserve full and equal moral status. 6) We are morally obligated to grant animals rights. Defense of Premise 2) Remember that this must be a property that would ground human’s moral dominance over animals. So properties such as being able to walk upright, have DNA, etc. does not ground this moral status. However, properties such being rational, autonomous, or ability to act morally can be reasons to gift humans dominance over animals. The problem with this is; not all humans possess these properties either. Examples would be the senile, infants, the cognitively disabled, etc. These are all “marginal” cases of humanity. Defense of 3)We must search for a property that; 1) all human beings possess, 2) all animals lack, and 3) sufficient to ground human dominance. As we do, we seem to push towards sentience, which I will show that animals experience in the next argument. Argument from Suffering 1) Animals can suffer (feel pain).2) If one can prevent suffering without sacrificing anything of equal moral worth, then one is obligated to do so. 3) Granting animals rights would prevent suffering without sacrificing anything of equal moral worth.4) One is morally obligated to grant animals rights. Defense of 1) If the question is “do animals feel pain?” How do we know that we humans also feel pain? We know that we individually feel pain, but we conclude that the entire human race feels pain by outside observation of behavior. We can conclude that a being feels pain by; writhing, screaming, reflexes (quickly drawing one’s hand away from the stove), facial expressions, moaning/yelping, attempting to avoid the source of the pain, etc. We can determine if others feel pain by outside indications, which is how we determined that humans feel pain. Outside indications show that animals feel pain, thus animals feel pain.“Every particle of factual evidence supports the contention that the higher mammalian vertebrates experience pain sensations at least as acute as our own. To say that they feel less because they are lower animals is an absurdity; it can easily be shown that many of their senses are far more acute that ours--visual acuity in certain birds, hearing in most wild animals, and touch in others; these animals depend more than we do today on the sharpest possible awareness of a hostile environment. Apart from the complexity of the cerebral cortex (which does not directly perceive pain) their nervous systems are almost identical to ours and their reactions to pain remarkably similar, though lacking (so far as we know) the philosophical and moral overtones. The emotional element is all too evident, mainly in the form of fear and anger." [2] We can reasonably conclude that animals feel pain based on observed behavior and anatomy.Defense of 3) This premise is very truistic. By giving animals rights it makes it illegal to cause them wanton suffering, and punishable if violated. People will not want to be punished, and therefore would reduce suffering. And our moral status is not on the line because granting animals rights does not necessitate violation of moral law. RebuttalCon proposes a logical argument; the premises follow to the conclusion. Thus, if even one of the premises is proven false, or the premises are proven non-sequitur, then the conclusion is proven invalid, and thus the entire argument can be thrown out. As I will show, many of Con’s premises are false, and therefore the entire argument is false. I will be skipping around to the premises that are false, but I leave the premises that I am not refuting still there so that the reader can still see the flow of the argument. The premises that I am refuting are underlined, with the refutation under it. 1. Either human rights exist or do not exist.2. Human rights entail individual liberty.3. If one human deprives another of liberty, through slavery, murder, or otherwise, he infringes upon his human rights.This is not justified. What are the premises on which a someone earns “human rights”? If it is merely being human, then depriving another of human rights does not change the fact that you are human. And thus you do not lose your human rights. Con needs to explain what premises grants someone human rights, and how depriving someone else of human rights negates your own. Neither of these are justified, and need to be for the argument to work.4. Existence of human rights necessitates abstention from infringing upon the rights of other humans.5. Humans must kill to eat--either plants, or animals.This is false. Milk, honey, tofu, yogurt, bread, nuts, butter, oranges, apples, etc. These are all things that are not alive, and you can eat to survive. 6. Both plants and animals are living.7. If living is what entitles an entity to rights, then both plants and animals have the same rights as humansWhy is it that living is what entitles an entity to rights? Con says that it is because it is the least nonsensical thing he has heard. But if Con is going to argue the property of living as grounding rights over sentience, rationality, self-consciousness, etc., he needs to justify it. 8. Therefore, humans cannot eat plants and animals.9. Humans eat.10. Either rights do not exist, and therefore we may eat, or they do exist, and therefore plants and animals do not have rights.11. Given the rules of this debate, rights exist.12. Either only animals+plants have rights, only humans have rights, or both have rights.13. Humans are a specific subset of animals14. If animals have rights, humans must have rights by definition of an animal.Con can’t include humans within the animal category because of how we mutually decided to define animal: with exclusion of humans. Check R1. This means that Con cannot justify that humans have rights, and that animals do not exclusively have rights. Thus the argument falls. 15. Therefore, rights cannot belong exclusively to animals (it is irrelevant whether only plants have rights).16. Either only humans have rights, or both humans and plants+animals have rights.17. If they have rights, plants/animals would be infringing upon human rights if they did not allow humans to eat them.18. If either plants or animals have rights, eating them infringes upon their rights.19. Therefore, humans and plants/animals would be in a constant state of violation of rights20. If rights cannot possibly be respected, then they do not exist.Why is this? This is not justified, merely asserted. Con must argue that justice does not require the recognition of animal rights. The fact that the rights may be broken often does not negate the fact that justice requires the recognition of animal rights. Thus this argument has no impact, as it does not negate the resolution. 21. Since rights exist, they must be respectable22. Therefore, plants and animals must not have rights.Since Con needs all premises intact in order for the argument to work, and multiple premises are blatantly false, the argument fails. [1] C/P’d from [http://www.iep.utm.edu...][2] http://www.animal-rights-library.com...