Zaradi's Prized Tournament: Animal Rights

Thanks to 16k! Onto my case!OBSERVATIONSOB1. It is not my burden in the round to show that animals are due equal rights to humans, or even most rights accorded to humans. It is my job to show that 'animal rights,' i.e. those right(s) fit for or applicable to animals, are required by justice. Therefore, if I can show that animals have any rights at all, even just one, and I can show that these rights are required by Justice, then I win the debate.OB2. It is not my job to show that animals each have the same set of rights. Just as different humans have different rights (for myriad reasons), the same is true of animals. OB3. I do not need to show that all animals have rights. If I show that any animals have rights, I have shown that "animal rights" exist, in that there are rights that are not exclusive to humans.OB4. It is the case that if something is a right, it is required by Justice. Justice involves giving each their due, and rights are our dues--those things to which we are entitled. Consequently, I simply need to show that animal rights exist and, in doing so, I simultaneously affirm that Justice requires them. ARGUMENTSC1. A Fundamental Due: Needless SufferingSC1. Preventing Needless Suffering is a Fundamental DuePerhaps the most fundamental due we ascribe to beings is the right to be free from needless or wanton suffering. In fact, one could make the argument that one of the primary purposes of rights is to prevent needless suffering. A person denied of liberty, unable to own property, and without any guarantees of bodily integrity is a person apt to be subject to needless suffering, and so the existence of these rights shields against that likelihood. Moreover, we can claim that even if preventing needless suffering weren't a goal or justification for the existence of certain rights, we can affirm that it does coincide with the moral community's understanding of rights and justice--someone who is needlessly suffering is, by necessity, having at least one of their rights violated and is being treated unjustly.A third and final justification for the importance of preventing needless suffering is an appeal to the idea of Justice itself. Justice is fairness or reasonableness, as well as giving each their due. Needless suffering is neither fair, nor reasonable, nor due--it is, by its very nature, needless.SC2. Animals have a Right against Needless SufferingAt least some animals are capable of suffering. Take elephants for example. Their advanced emotional capacities mean that they are definitely capable of suffering: "Studies show that structures in the elephant brain are strikingly similar to those in humans. MRI scans of an elephant's brain suggest a large hippocampus, the component in the mammalian brain linked to memory and an important part of its limbic system, which is involved in processing emotions. The elephant brain has also been shown to possess an abundance of the specialized neurons known as spindle cells, which are thought to be associated with self-awareness, empathy, and social awareness in humans. Elephants have even passed the mirror test of self-recognition, something only humans, and some great apes and dolphins, had been known to do." [1] Elephants that have witnessed or been subject to violence also show signs of PTSD. "'A large body of research shows that the neurobiological mechanisms of attachment are found in many mammals, including humans and elephants...The emotional relationship between the mother...offspring impacts the wiring of the infants' developing brain.'" [1, 2] Elephants are also known to mourn those they lost, showing negative emotions (e.g. regret) at the absence of the lost others. [3]Generically, research suggests that "all vertebrates appear to have some capacity for primal affective feelings." [4] All mammals have universal survival circuits as well. These circuits are closely related to emotions, strongly implying that some similarities in emotions carry across the board. [5] There is even evidence many that mammals have conscious experiences. [6]The conclusion that can be drawn from the above is quite simple: if animals can needlessly suffer, and there exists a generic right against needless suffering, then animals have a right against needless suffering.C2. A Symbiotic Relationship: Give and TakeRelationships where one party uses the other as a tool merit some kind of compensation for the party used as a tool. An employer uses his employees as tool, and so he must pay them. Give and take is a concept naturally intertwined with justice. If we imagine justice as a scale (return to the idea of fairness), then it would be unbalanced (unfair) if I failed to give back. If that employer takes your time without paying you, then the scale tips noticeably in his favor. Similarly, when a thief steals, we acknowledge the victim's right to be reimbursed for the value of the stolen object(s). It seems obviously unfair and unreasonable to take from animals, without giving anything in return. A shepherd's llama defends the sheep from predators, and so the shepherd, in the spirit of fairness, should reciprocate by providing shelter and/or food to the llama. Similarly, most animals are necessary to sustain the planet's biodiversity and healthy ecosystems, and so provide us a benefit. We should reciprocate somehow, e.g. human treatment, and this would be their due. And, because it is their due, or something that could be properly asserted to be their due, it means that it is also their right. The basic moral intuition here is that a one-sided relationship is not a fair (or just) relationship.C3. Sympathy: Emotions and RightsWhen we look into the face of the Other, we understand their pain and sympathize with them. This expression is a demonstration that the Other matters to us, and bestows on the Other moral value in the beholder's eyes. It demands that the beholder respect the Other. Sympathy is an internal compulsion to act, pressing on our individual moral compasses. That we feel sympathy for the Other gives the Other a claim on our action; to forgo acting on sympathy would be to deny the worth of the Other, a worth our sympathy had just validated. If we feel sympathy for animals, then it seems they too deserve/have a right to respect.C4. A Truism: Animals have Legal RightsSC1. The Truism of InheritanceAnimals have legal rights in the status quo; it's a truism. Say I had a pet barn owl (awesome!) or a pet red panda (too cute!), and I died. Suppose that I bequeathed money to both animals to ensure that they were cared for. Are these sums not the animals' dues?"Children and idiots start legal proceedings, not on their own direct initiative, but rather through the actions of proxies or attorneys who are empowered to speak in their names. If there is no conceptual absurdity in this situation, why should there be in the case where a proxy makes a claim on behalf of an animal? People commonly enough make wills leaving money to trustees for the care of animals. Is it not natural to speak of the animal's right to his inheritance in cases of this kind? If a trustee embezzles money from the animal's account, and a proxy speaking in the dumb brute's behalf presses the animal's claim, can he not be described as asserting the animal's rights'? More exactly, the animal itself claims its rights through the vicarious actions of a human proxy speaking in its name and in its behalf." [7]SC2. The Law as a DueIf the Law makes the promise of any action X, then are not the promisees due action X? As long as the promise does not violate some preexisting law, then the promise itself is valid, and it would, prima facie, seem unfair and unreasonable to not keep the promise. For example, if I promise to make you a vase, you are reasonably entitled to expect the delivery of that vase.The law makes promises to animals, who, by extension, now have ethical and legal rights to cache in on those promises. For instance, laws against animal abuse or of using animals in fights makes promises to the animals that they will be (not) treated in certain ways. Animals thus become entitled to the promised conditions, which are their rights.C5. Humans + Animals: No Relevant DifferencesIn this contention, I will endeavor to show that if we believe humans have rights, we must, by default, acknowledge that animals have rights (in some degree) as well. My logic can be laid out in the following syllogism; though I make no claims to its formal validity, it illustrates my thought-process: P1. Humans have rightsP2. There are no relevant differences between humans and animalsC1. Animals have rights We can look to the examples of babies and of the profoundly mentally handicapped (including severe Alzheimer's, brain injuries, etc.) with which to make this case (perhaps even the comatose). Humanity accords to both of these groups certain rights against maltreatment and abuse, yet they are incapable of reasoning, incapable of higher-order emotions, self-actualization/goal-setting, and are unable to rationally engage with the moral community.If these classes of people are granted rights, then why shouldn't animals? All three groups (animals, the mentally handicapped, and infants) share a dearth of those qualities usually used to differentiate humans and animals. In fact, some animals might be more capable of rational thought, emotions, goal-setting, and/or communal engagement than those groups of people, seemingly making them more qualified for rights than many humans.UNDERVIEWPresume Pro because it's more egregiously unjust to deny rights where they were due than to award rights where they weren't.SOURCES1 - http://tinyurl.com...2 - http://tinyurl.com...3 - http://tinyurl.com...4 - http://tinyurl.com...5 - http://tinyurl.com...6 - http://tinyurl.com...7 - http://tinyurl.com...Thus, I affirm. Over to Pro...