Justice Requires the Recognition of Animal Rights

Mahatma Gandhi once said, "You can judge a society by how they treat their weakest members." This quotation was revolutionary and inspired many different social justice movements that saw greater racial tolerance, expanded rights for foster children, and the cultivation of religious understanding. In the spirit of Ghandi's life work I think that it is critical that we recognize the value that all members play within a society and therefore I stand resolved that Justice requires the recognition of animal rights. In order to offer clarity in today's debate I offer the following definitions from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Justice: the quality of being fair and reasonable Recognition: Acknowledgment of something's existence, validity, or legality Animal Rights: The rights to humane treatment claimed on behalf of animals My value in today's debate will be Justice and my value criterion will be Animal Rights Now move with me to my first contention: Contention One: Animal Rights are a critical piece of modern American Public Policy It is important to note that affirming the resolution and recognizing animal rights does not mean that hunting would be completely banned, that there could be no animal testing, and that you couldn't have a steak for dinner tonight. Instead the recognition of animal rights means that we acknowledge that animals have value and should be respected. In a similar sense the United States recognizes human rights and has standards for ways that people can be treated. Recognizing the value of human life means that we aren't permitted to kill someone randomly on the street but doesn't mean that killing someone is always illegal. An example of this is that international standards like the Geneva Convention do not make war illegal but look for ways to minimize the frequency and the extent of wars. Our country works diligently to ensure that animals are recognized. The USDA (http://www.usda.gov...) described in 2011 that: The "U.S. government places restrictions on the size of Controlled Animal Feeding Operations such that animals cannot be shoved into spaces that are deemed to be too cramped." Also, the U.S. Department of Agriculture regulates what antibiotics can be given to animals such that animals are not harmed. Furthermore, the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 which is enforced by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the USDA regulates ways that animals could be tested guaranteeing certain species a "certain standard of care and treatment." We can all imagine what terrible things would happen to animals if these protections were not in place. A society without any of these protections would be unjust and unsafe for humans. It is clear that we have taken a lot of strides toward the protection of animal rights but there are still many steps that we must take to ensure justice for both animals and humans. Contention Two: The recognition of Animal Rights is critical for the betterment of the economy The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wrote in 2011 (http://www.epa.gov...) that, "The agriculture community has important economic reasons to be concerned and informed about food safety requirements and issues. To be accepted in the marketplace, agricultural products must meet governmental food safety standards." Contention Three: The recognition of Animal Rights is crucial for the health and viability of humankind When we eat an animal we take in the toxins that the animal has consumed. If we don't recognize animal rights to clean and safe environments we will harm humankind. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wrote in 2011 that (http://www.epa.gov...), "Fish taken from polluted waters might be hazardous to your health. Eating fish containing chemical pollutants may cause birth defects, liver damage, cancer, and other serious health problems. Fish may be exposed to chemical pollutants in the water and in the food they eat. They may take up some of the pollutants into their bodies. The pollutants are found in the skin, fat, internal organs, and sometimes muscle tissue of the fish. The states and the four U.S. Territories and Native American tribes have primary responsibility for protecting their residents from the health risks of consuming contaminated noncommercially caught fish and wildlife." The EPA is arguing that if we don't recognize animal rights then humans will suffer the consequences. The recognition of animal rights therefore preserves our food sources making our food safer and healthier for us to eat. According to nutritionist Greg Hottinger, RD: (http://www.bestnaturalfoods.com...) Today's chickens are bred and raised to reach the supermarket as quickly as possible. Instead of farms, the chicken industry uses warehouse-like structures to provide the living environment for as many as 100,000 chickens at a time. These chickens are fed rendered meat scraps, including hog and cattle byproducts, and waste products including their own manure. The end result of these large-scale, "efficient" operations is chicken meat that is relatively inexpensive to the consumer – that is, if the consumer is only considering the monetary measure. The cost is enormous when we factor in our health. Eighty percent of supermarket broiler chickens are infected with the bacteria campylobacter and twenty percent with salmonella. Overcrowding and unsanitary conditions create a more stressful environment and greater disease rates among poultry, necessitating the use of antibiotics. Contention Four The recognition of Animal Rights is key to preserving justice Justice is defined as giving what is due. To act justly is to act in a way that is respectful of the needs of all living beings involved. To evaluate what is just we must consider both the impact that an action will have on people and the impact on animals. Dr. Edward Younkins of the Free Liberty Press explains in 2000 http://www.quebecoislibre.org... "John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) said that it was inconsistent with justice to be partial. The public good is promoted when justice is impartially administered because it is to each person's benefit that no injustice be done to him, so it is also to his benefit that the principle that makes him secure should not be violated for other men, because such a violation would weaken his own security. Justice requires rule by known general principles of conduct, which apply without exception, to all regardless of status or wealth, in an unknown number of future instances. It follows that all citizens should have equal access to legal recourse in the event of an attack on their life, property, or freedom." It is easy to see this within my second and third contentions where I proved that not respecting animal rights is harmful to the economy and to human health and safety. In conclusion, as John Stuart Mill wrote in his book "Principles of Political Economy", "The reasons for legal intervention in favour of children, apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves and victims of the most brutal part of mankind, the lower animals." Thank you, and I now stand open for cross-examination.