According to Preference Utilitarianism, Speceisism is Morally Wrong

Burden: My opponent has the burden to prove that preference utilitarianism excludes specisism as a legal decision calculus. Meaning the government or society cannot differentiate all rights allocations based on species. Syllogism Observations 1. My opponent gives us in his syllogism how it's possible to tell if preferences exist, but doesn't tell us 1) what preferences animals have besides being physically harmed, and 2) how do we allocate the fulfillment of these preferences 2. Syllogisms are insufficient in terms of utilitarian or consequentialist analysis. This is true because utilitarianism involves the weighing of end state and consequences. Utilitarianism isn't a system that can be simply understood from a flow of premises and conclusions. Impact calculus type models are necessary. C1: Assumptions of preference utilitarianism The definition my opponent provides is: Moral theory according to which the good consists in the satisfaction an agent's preferences, and the rightness of an action depends directly or indirectly on its being productive of such satisfaction. This makes two fundamental assumptions: (1) Agency. Agency can be broken down into two sects – logical and moral. Logical being that an agent can deduce for themselves and act according to logical analysis. Moral being that an agent can act within deductions of the right/ethical. Animals lack both these types of agencies, since they act on instinct, and thus are precluded from the calculus of preference utilitarianism. (2) Productivity. The definition of preference utilitarianism makes the point of productivity for the sake of achieving one's preferences. This links back to the notion that preference utilitarianism would be bound by preference calculus's since it is inevitable that preferences will compete, especially between humans and animals. At this point, the very definition of preference utilitarianism makes 2 assumptions which would preclude analyzing animal preferences. C2: Interventionism and Competition A) The "animal world" is not conducive for moral normativity. As such, the burden of interference and authority lies with human actors. This creates a conflict of interest and off-sets the general competitive notion found within the "animal world." The moral burden that human authorities would have would be to basically police the "animal world," since preference utilitarianism would morally demand that we reduce as much pain as possible in an attempt to maximize preferences and happiness. This is problematic. To demonstrate this I will give a scenario. Lion A is hunting a group of gazelles, labeled group B. The preference of Lion A is to eat, and thus to hunt. The preferences of group B will be to live, as shown by the behavioral sign of trying to escape the lion. Preference utilitarianism, under the syllogism of my opponent would morally demand that humans intervene to stop Lion A from hunting, and thus protecting the preferences of group B. However, this creates a conflict of interest. Lion A needs to violate the preferences of group B in order to eat and thus survive. This arena of complete competition for survival makes interventionism a moral imperative, however by the very nature of the "animal world," this intervention creates a conflict of interest within the sphere of preference utilitarianism. Which leads to B B) Preference utilitarianism presupposes a contractualist framework, which is lacking within the realm of non-human nature. Societies function through explicit and implicit contracts. This would be true in both a statist and anarchist society. It is the best way to maintain order and stability. Both of these are prerequisites to any type of utilitarianism, because we cannot maximize preferences unless there is a stable framework to work under. As such, contractualism will ultimately determine what will be constituted under preference utilitarianism. Contractualism states that we determine moral norms by our autonomy, and thus our ability to enter into agreements or contracts. Since animals lack autonomous agency, and by extended logic cant willingly enter into contracts, then animals are not a part of our moral decision calculus'. C3: Rights Analysis The advocacy of my opponent leads to the conclusion that non-humans need to be afforded rights as well. The problem with this, however, is that rights are given to humans as a way to govern HUMAN society. For example, the first amendment - right to freedom of religion and speech – is given to humans so we can freely and autonomsly express our opinions without the interference of the government or another individual. This would not be the case for animals, since they lack the ability to do either of these things. The 4th and 5th Amendments allocate rights as a way to protect criminals from prosecutorial and governmental abuse. Again, animals don't access these rights because they lack the ability to freely commit crimes and to be prosecuted under legal statutes. These isolated examples prove that yes, there are certain rights that legitimately cannot be afforded to animals since they lack the capacity to fully exercise these rights. This makes specisism legitimate, at least on a case by case basis. As such, preference utilitarianism would not completely exclude specicism as a legal decision calculus. C4: Consequentialism Since preference utilitarianism is an off-shoot of consequentialism, then preference utilitarianism is bound by overriding end states. This has 2 links to the resolution: (1) Preference utilitarianism cannot 100% exclude an act or belief. This is true because utilitarianism is a flexible moral philosophy and not a categorical one. As such, the resolutional prima facie cannot be accepted because it is condemning a legal decision calculus without first doing a weighing of ends. The underlying notion of utilitarianism and consequentialism thus would reject the resolution without even a further analysis. (2) Affirming the resolution would lead to the banning of most farming and ranching, animal testing and animal containment. This would highly and negatively affect human society in that eating habits will be drastically altered and also research will be hindered. Moreover, governmental councils would have to be created and so would probably a separate and specialized judiciary system. This would skyrocket the debt, and the debt is overarchingly bad. Large debts crowd out the private sector from loans and investments, since the government would be funneling into all the system. This would increase inflation which would drive up the prices of commodities and other goods within society. And this would lead to Chinese Dollar Dumping, which would cripple the US economy forcing the majority of the US populous into debt. This would also harm the environment since it would reverse green innovation. As such, my opponents advocacy turns itself. [1] [1] Dorsch, , 7/7/9 "How Long Can the U.S. Dollar Defy the Law of Gravity?" http://www.marketoracle.co.uk...)