RESOLVED: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism.

NC ( this is an LD debate) value: intrinsic value -- the principle of this is that regardless of what kind of entity it is in other respects, if it is a member of earth's community of life, the realization of its good is something that is intrinsically valuable. Therefore, it's good is prima facie worthy of being preserved, considered, respected, or promoted as an end in itself for the sake of the entity whose good it is. can't be treated as a mere means to an end. Cr: equal consideration of interests --(the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being), if and only if it has the capacity for suffering and/or enjoyment. my Cr. connects to my value by 1.the principle of equal consideration is about fairly considering the interests of certain sorts of beings. 2. But the capacity for suffering and/or pleasure(enjoyment etc. etc.) is a necessary prerequisite for having interests at all. - It doesn't make sense to say that non-sentient beings like plants and algae have "interests". -By the very nature of the case, it is in the interest of every sentient being that it experience enjoyment and avoid suffering. - to be capable of suffering and/ or enjoyment is to have interests; or at least that is the most basic level of having interests. It's the "threshold" for having interests. So all animals are worthy of equal consideration - and if all animals are worthy it holds that all animals are intrinsically valuable). ATTACKS pro c1- A.- "all the moral duties we have towards the environment and other species are derived from our direct duties to its human inhabitants." question How? and Why? B.- if by "interest in the protection of other species" you mean killing millions of animals every year then yes they do http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... see the videos I agree humans "have a vested interest in the protection of other species and the environment". wait isn't the "environment" being overly polluted by humans? C.- "in order for humans to exist other species must thrive as well" I believe that this is called equal consideration of interests D.- "anthropocentrism strives to maximize the amount of life" no it doesn't anthropocentrism is just another form of being conceded and thinking about yourself and even if we wanted to maximize the amount of life Africa and China would then be in bigger trouble. Humans over breed and they make livestock and animals over breed then they kill them. sub-conclusion anthropocentrism do doesn't strive to maximize life therefore utilitarianism isn't achieved. C2-he has already defined intrinsic value then redefines it again on this argument and his argument relies on the definition which is incorrect therefore the argument has fallacious logic conclusion- his C1 and C2 are wrong therefore Neg wins due to not having any proof (Aff has burden of proof and must refute all arguments in order to win Neg just needs to negate). ARGUMENTS I have showed how my opponents arguments are flawed and now will move on to my own C1- humans are not superior for several reasons 1.-historically popular reasons given for why women, and members of all races in general, should be treated equally while animals should not: reason 1 they all share at least one or more ( putatively significant ) trait that animals do not (e.g., they are all capable of making rational decisions). therefore, men and women should be treated equally, while animals should not. :notice equal possession of a relevant trait merits equal treatment.* yes men and women do have traits that animals don't but then there are also differences between men and women. So the equal sharing of a trait doesn't ground equal treatment nor equal rights. there is no trait by which every individual human is equal to every other (e.g. intellectual ability, moral capacities, capacity to experience pleasure or pain, etc. etc.). So we can conclude that equal sharing of a trait doesn't justify equal treatment for humans so animals should be considered equally with humans thus achieving intrinsic worth. C2- Humans, simply by being members of the homo-sapiens, have a higher degree of intrinsic worth than any other species this is what Aff is basically trying to prove so by disproving this I should win The idea of degrees of inherent worth is based on an obsolete, morally repugnant idea of a strict hierarchy of social classes. According to the picture, members of higher classes were more valuable and important than members of lower classes. As such, just by being born into a rich family automatically made you more valuable than poorer people, no matter what you do. Now we live in a democracy, and the class system seems morally absurd. No person is more valuable than any other, no matter how rich or poor you are. So, since the idea only gets justification from the false view of classicism, but at the level of species, not wealth. This idea is just as morally repugnant as the classicist idea. We're not more valuable than other life forms just because we're born into the "prestigious" human race.