Non-human animals should have rights.

I thank Nags for setting up this debate and increasing awareness on this topic. Given that the position I'm arguing for is vastly unpopular I would strongly encourage voters of a different persuasion to read my arguments carefully. ============= Case Pro- Rebuttals ============= Contention 1: I'm being accused of creating a straw man argument. My opponent has failed to grasp the crux of my argument so let me make it again in a shortened form. Individual capabilities aren't relevant to granting rights. In other words higher I.Q. scores or physical characteristics cannot be a sound basis for discrimination or denying rights. It follows from this that all humans can be considered equal on the basis that they can all hold preferences and interests because this is the only relevant thing all sentient humans have in common. Ergo if we grant that the principle of equality is equality of interests then Non-human animals should also have rights because they can hold preferences and desires much like humans can. Animals can hold preferences, suffer, and even be self-aware and thus should be afforded rights since intelligence or physical characteristics aren't a sound basis for discrimination. If my opponent isn't willing to take advantage of the mentally handicapped then on what basis would he be justified in exploiting animals like gorillas and refusing to grant them rights? My opponent calls my argument fallacious simply because he didn't understand the reasoning behind it. Nags, please read my round 1 argument again and this time try to focus, I didn't argue that, "humans are granted rights based on individuality" I argued the exact opposite of this. My two paragraphs are meant to flow together and compliment each other; the second paragraph builds on what was established in the first. Contention 2: "Humans are granted rights based on the fact that humans are the same species as each other."- Nags If one were feeling generous one might think that something essential to these profundities got lost in translation. However, it would appear that my opponent has begun to manufacture bad arguments in earnest, but that's ok because I'm more than willing to tackle them. The fact that something is a member of a certain species is not a valid criterion for granting it rights. People that are permanently brain-dead are also members of our species and have all the biological functions of a human apart from an active brain. Likewise, three-day-old blastocysts are also genetically members of the species homo sapiens and thus, by my opponent's own logic, should be granted rights. I will simply end by pointing out that my opponent's argument leads to absurd results and thus is logically invalid. Contention 3: Animals are much "like robots"- Nags "Animals are neither moral or immoral, they are amoral. Animals do not respect human rights, so humans should not respect animal rights. Animals are amoral, instinctual, irrational beings much likes robots." - Nags Even if your bigoted and erroneous views about animals were correct, which they aren't, I could make the exact same argument about people that are severely mentally retarded. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] People suffering from severe brain injuries are neither moral nor rational beings. And if you aren't willing to concede that mentally retarded citizens should be denied rights then on what ground, sir, do you believe that animals shouldn't be given rights? A fully-grown adult gorilla has a higher capacity to reason, experience pleasure, enjoy life, feel pain, and be self aware than many humans with severe brain injuries. My main point is, of course, that both mentally retarded persons and gorillas should have rights because they can both suffer and hold preferences regardless of their capabilities. Contention 4: Membership in a society can establish one's claim to rights. -Nags This argument is no more valid when applied to animals then it would be if it were applied to a single human living in solitude in some remote part of the world. ====== Case Pro ====== Contention 1: Higher primates are persons and thus deserve rights. What does it mean to be a person? Many people, especially in abortion debates, simply define personhood as being exclusively related to one's membership in the species Homo sapiens. However, the reasoning behind these arguments is circular and fallacious. As I have shown earlier people that are brain dead and three day old blastocysts would also qualify for personhood in this worldview. Therefore we cannot accept that a person is simply an individual that is a member of the species homo sapiens. So, how are we to define what it means to be a person? Let me propose the definition of a person to be as follows- "a distinct entity with preferences and the capability to view oneself as a unique individual that exists over time." Given this definition non-human animals, like chimpanzees, also qualify as persons and thus should be afforded rights. Further chimpanzees also posses the basic characteristics of personhood that according to Peter Singer are, "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness" [6]. Arguing that personhood equals membership in the species Homo sapiens begs the question. And considering that capacities like intelligence aren't a sufficient basis to establish personhood then my definition should stand. That is, of course, unless you wish to challenge it. ======= Conclusion ======= My opponent has failed to give any compelling reasons that non-human animals should be denied rights. On the other hand I have given an objective basis that would grant rights to animals and I have demonstrated that the principle of equality we appeal to in society is equality of interests. Therefore we would be on shaky ground not to confer certain rights to animals if we want to argue that all humans should have rights regardless of their capabilities. ===== Sources ===== [1]http://www.animal-rights-library.com... [2]http://news.bbc.co.uk... [3]http://www.cbsnews.com... [4] Sam Harris et al., Truthdig "The Language of Ignorance" (Aug 15, 2006) http://www.truthdig.com... "What if mice showed greater distress at the suffering of familiar mice than unfamiliar ones? (They do.) What if monkeys will starve themselves to prevent their cage-mates from receiving painful shocks? (They will.) What if chimps have a demonstrable sense of fairness when receiving food rewards? (They have.) Wouldn't these be precisely the sorts of findings one would expect if our morality were the product of evolution?" –10th Paragraph [5] http://www.wellcome.ac.uk... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org...