Resolved: free family pigeons kept for racing.

It was said that the pigeons owners, Olivia's cousins, were cruel to their animals; however, that "cruelness" came in the form of keeping the pigeons solely for racing instead of as pets. I say - who cares? My opponent writes, "Keeping the birds only for racing and not at all as pets seems to needlessly exploit the animals." Okay, so what about people who own animals solely for show (a fancy fish tank)? Or how about race horses? They're worth hundreds of thousands of dollars - would it be okay to free them from their "cruel" owners who keep them solely to race? People own pets for a lot of reasons, and as long as those pets are kept safe and comfortable, nobody has the right to take those pets away. If Olivia's cousins owned dogs and used them in dog fights, that would be inhumane, as the dogs only exist to fight and kill. However pigeons are not dogs and pigeon racing is not dog fighting. There are only so many ways you can play with a pigeon. Frankly I'm not sure I would even notice if a pigeon was kept as a pet or only for racing. Birds stay in cages. If Olivia's cousins keep their pigeons safely in an appropriate cage (which Pro's opening argument implied that they did), then who cares if those pigeons aren't being... played with enough? If we can remove someone's animal because they intend to solely race it instead of keeping it as a pet, does this mean we can raid every farm and/or slaughter house and take THOSE animals too?! Those animals aren't kept for racing - they're kept solely for us to kill and eventually eat. Something tells me that the practices of slaughter houses are far more tragic than those of Olivia's cousins, yet to consider releasing those animals is - for the most part - considered out of the question. Yes, animals and nature have a value that people must protect, but the question is: to what extent? People also have rights including the right to property, and as far as I'm concerned, those pigeons belong to Olivia's cousins -- to free them would be a terrible injustice to responsible pet owners. Though a little cold (or maybe they just don't like pigeons), the cousins have done nothing to warrant taking their property. Not only have they kept and trained and maintained the livelihood of a few racing pigeons, but they are also very nice people (note the amount of times it was pointed out that Olivia's cousins are nice to her). I'm not a religious person, though I do believe it is quoted somewhere that "Thou shall not steal." In fact, this is commanded. For those of us who are a little more secular, consider the words of our Founding Fathers who spoke of our right to property. Are these pigeons not property? The problem with Pro's case is that he suggests Kant's philosophy of encouraging duty and honesty and Mill's idea of the ends justifying the means (wasn't that Machiavelli?). Well here's what I have to say about that. I do believe that utilizing Kant's ideas of duty and honesty, Olivia should not set the birds free. This example calls for her to choose between her moral duty to her cousins and her moral duty to a few racing pigeons. Based on the facts (i.e. her cousins are nice to her, they are not cruel to their animals other than keeping them solely for sport, etc.) I would say that Olivia's duty to her cousin surpasses that of her duty to the pigeons. In terms of honesty, lying to her cousins about what happened to the birds would not only be hurting her cousins, but also herself and her own conscience as well. Mill, who was greatly influenced by Bentham, followed the concept of utilarianism: within reason, one must always act to produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. In this scenario, if Olivia sets the birds free, only she is happy and her cousins (multiple people) are dissatisfied. So by Mill's logic, she should not set the birds free. Another part of this philosophy includes Mill's expansion on the subject to oppose Bentham's thinking. A good example is Bentham's suggestion that "Pushpin is as good as an opera." In other words, Bentham contests that if equal or more people get the same kind of happiness from pushpin as some people get from an opera, pushpin is not of lesser value than opera. Mill disagrees, and notes that people only receive such happiness from pushpin because they have not been exposed to opera. Had they had a chance to compare the two, they would favor the opera... the point is that the "little things" tend to be favored by those who have no experience with anything else, and therefore they are not in a proper position to judge. So by this logic, Olivia is judging her cousins for their actions, without having kept pigeons solely for sport herself. Had she been included in their endeavors, she may not have had the same perspective. Either way, she is in no position to make the call to rid someone of their rightful belongings. Animals have souls but they are still considered property. Also, if Olivia is still upset about the birds, maybe someone can remind her of Mill's philosophy that "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied." :P