Non-human animals should have rights.

Animal rights is certainly an interesting topic and hopefully both of us will leave this exchange with a better understanding of each others positions. For the first round I will present an argument for extending rights to animals generally. Later on I will try to focus in on the rights of higher primates e. g. chimpanzees, gorillas, and bonobos for two reasons. Firstly, they are our closest living relatives and share many of the characteristics of humans. And like humans chimpanzees are self aware of their existence. [1] Secondly, they help us define what it is to be human. The more we know about them and their communities the better we can understand, from an anthropological perspective, what our humanity actually entails. Most of the arguments I will be using are based on the writings of Peter singer so if you want to be more familiar with them you may wish to read the following books- (Writings on an ethical life) (Animal Liberation). I will also be linking to articles he has written that I draw from. Normally in these debates I would give around 4 arguments and throw it back to con. However, for the moment I will only be presenting 1 argument, which I believe will sufficiently fulfill my burden of proof. Even if you aren't convinced by it then I have about two more in my back pocket should the need arise. ========= Contention 1: Animal's interests should be taken into consideration. ========= What are we asserting when we say that all humans are equal regardless of their age, sex, creed etc? Clearly we don't mean all humans have the same capacities or are somehow equal in their capabilities. Like it or not some human individuals are smarter, stronger, more capable of suffering and experiencing happiness, and kinder than others. No matter which criterion we choose to value not all humans are equal in terms of their qualities. So where does this leave us? Unless my opponent wishes to argue in favor of a hierarchical inegalitarian society then he must concede that our rights aren't simply an extension of our individual characteristics. It is equal consideration of interests that we are really arguing for when we say that all humans are equal. In this context it would be wrong for us to subjugate minorities so they can serve as our slaves because doing this would not take into consideration the interests of one group. In other words the interests of white Europeans cannot trump the interests of black Africans simply because one group may or may not have a better education than the other. If we, as a society, were to defend an inegalitarian hierarchical system based on actual abilities then we would be forced to stop demanding equality, because actual equality among humans doesn't exist in reality. I shall argue, in favor of Peter Singer's position, that the basic principle of equality is equality of consideration. And using this method would inevitably result in different treatment among animals and different rights that accrue from that basis. Insofar as an animal is self aware or has the capacity to feel pain or experience happiness then it has just as much of a claim to rights as humans do. Of course, this does not mean that we ought to treat all groups of animals equally. For example, cows are incapable of driving a car or holding a conscious desire to drive a car, ergo depriving this group of the right to drive a car would not be a violation of its interests. In the same way it would be completely meaningless to speak of a mans right to have an abortion it would be meaningless to speak of a chickens rights to vote. Chickens and other farm animals are simply incapable of seriously weighing political issues or understanding the importance of voting. Let's try to avoid getting mired down in nonsense. The extension of the principle of equality from one group of animals to another does not necessarily entail the view that we treat all groups identically or that we extend exactly the same rights from one group to another. In order to form a nondiscriminatory basis for dolling out rights to groups then we must view the qualities of the groups at hand such as their capacity to suffer and think rationally. And once we do this we come to realize that some animals e. g. (an adult Gorilla) have more of a right to life than certain humans e. g. (newborn infants born without a brain). - [2] ========= Conclusion ========= To discriminate against animals merely on the basis that they have fur or walk on four legs is no more justifiable a basis for discrimination than discrimination on the basis of skin color or gender. We must have equal consideration for the interests of all sentient beings e. g. dogs, severely retarded humans, Gorillas, horses etc because they can all suffer and feel happiness regardless of the qualities they may possess. And taking these interests into consideration would provide a sound basis for us extending rights to animals. If we were to regard qualities and capacities as an important measure for the creation of rights then we would be forced to adopt an inegalitarian hierarchical system, which as I have demonstrated earlier is simply untenable. ====== Sources ====== [1]. http://www.psywww.com... [2] [. http://www.animal-rights-library.com... ======== Definitions ======== inegalitarian- Marked by or accepting of social, economic, or political inequality. (. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)