Animal rights is an unjustified ethical doctrine.

To begin, I can spy at least one reverberating discrepancy which presents itself to be a serious matter for my opponent's position - multiple times he has stepped outside of what can be labelled "animal rights" and instead likely places himself into the shoes of an animal welfarist. While he may not personally agree with this, my definitions in the first round stipulated as such. I noticed this happening in the previous round, but I gave leniency in hope that his next round would clear it up - it seems not to be the case. As such, I highly recommend the audience and my opponent take heed of this, as I will bring it up later on. Further, he points out that I have a burden to show why animal rights is empty and unfulfilled. How does he think I could carry out such a task? Should I attempt to refute every possible argument that could be mounted in favor? I think not - rather, I will prove my opponent's argument to be false and to be lenient, I will also tip in on how such counterarguments prove to be effective against the animal rights movement in general as well. In other words, I will tackle the ethical background of animal rights while simultaneously attacking CON's specific arguments, so I can cover both basis - even though I don't agree this to be my appropriate burden. ==================== Argument: Fulfilling the urge towards universal compassion and understanding ==================== Since my opponent has gratefully responded to my criticism in it's original two-fold format, I will reply in the same manner. 1. The flaws in your syllogism are as follows: ethics is not the concern of EVERY moral agent and Einstein's intelligence is irrelevant to the conclusion you desire. The first claim is easily upheld - not every human being cares about ethics, and even if they do most have a very superficial understanding of it even if they are incredibly smart in some other field. Furthermore, since you are supporting animal rights you must believe animals to be moral agents as well (otherwise, how can they be morally relevant? ), but they certainly don't have a concern for ethics given they can't even comprehend it. The second claim is a common mistake as well; Einstein was definitely one of the greatest physicists of all time, but his intelligence is likely corenered to the scientific fields, namely mathematics and physics. Just because he is smart in this field, DOES NOT LEAD to the conclusion that he would be similarly adept in other disciplines, namely philosophy. You can have a genius chemist who is an idiot at sociology, or a brilliant sociologist futility attempting meta-ethics (the former happens quite a lot). 2. Whatever the nature of this process is, whether it is begin developed or fully nurtured, escapes the bigger meta-ethical point I am pointing at, namely WHY SHOULD WE CARE? You profess universal compassion to be the correct goal, implying that it is an objective moral value. If so, then you must demonstrate why we are binded to such a goal. Indeed, I will take the opportunity here to point out the common flaws of animal rights arguments. Many position themselves by arguing for a utilitarian like framework, in which any sentient being is regarded as a person - what I am asking both of you and the rest of the animal rights activists is why we would value the certain objective moral value you have pronounced. Why whould I care about sentient beings? Why should I care about universal compassion? ==================== Argument: Acquiring Symbiotic Benefits ==================== I would love to see my opponent show me any fundamental scientific principle that states technology can't "fully insulate us from the rest of nature", and to show granting animal's rights would lead to a dead and sterile landscape. Apparently, my opponent doesn't realize that harmony with nature CAN BE ACHIEVED without resorting to animal rights. And yes, there is some truth to the claim that if we don't act in a completely aggressive manner our relationship with animals will be much more amiable in some certain circumstances. While I see a plethora of flaws with your overall argument, I will assume it's truth for the sake of argument. So let's say that we can not only construct a healthy relationship with animals, but they can also aid us given our symbiotic relationship. The problem herein arises: All of this can be achieved without adopting animal rights. Animal rights necessitates that we don't eat animals, but we can clearly grow domestic cows for food and clothing while upholding symbiotic relationships with the rest of the animal kingdom that we don't hunt (after all, there isn't some global animal network where cows tell dolphins they are being eaten). ==================== Argument: Meta-ethics - Allowing the shooting of the box ==================== Ah, I apologize. It seems I have misunderstood my opponent's analogy, albeit it was a little confusing I should have read it more carefully. However, given this new revelation a criticism seems easier than before. But before I get there, let's respond in correspondence with my opponent's numbered format: 1. "At the very least it will force some sort of change upon humans that will likely be UNWANTED. This is detrimental enough itself. " You actually misunderstand my argument here, but I won't bother defending it here. I actually will drop this point, since it's useless for my purposes as I have a much stronger criticism following. 2. "The issue here is whether or not animals are persons, which you have yet to satisfy. " Your analogy uses the point of the box either being empty or full in comparison to the situation with animal rights; animals could either have rights or not. You present a pragmatic course of action that we shouldn't deny animals rights to begin with, because there isn't much to lose in comparison to the possibility we misjudged and animals do have rights while we end up abusing them. While this is could be a salient point, it crumbles under the following reason: The possibility of animals having rights, unless shown otherwise, is much less than 50% which you proposed in your analogy. Unless you use other arguments to show that animals have a high probability of being persons, then this argument can't stand on it's feet by itself. Indeed, this type of argument if applied throughout every situation would create many absurd conclusions, unless we realize that just because there is a possibility does NOT MEAN we should have a reasonable concern for it. 3. "Prove how diminishing suffering of sentient beings amount to some good. After all, isn't this the ENTIRE PURPOSE of this debate? " As I've shown before, your argument here fails on the meta-ethical grounds that you have never justified why universal compassion should be an objective moral value. 4. "So any human who eats steaks and wears leather jackets is more cruel and callous to others in comparison to vegetarians and the like? Preposterous. " Humans eat meat because they like it, and they usually justify it by believing animals don't have rights. You could find this to be callous reasoning. .. if they are to be wrong - which this debate obviously is surmised upon. And even if some people do it out of brash reasons, I'd hardly see this to be a serious problem. ==================== Conclusion ==================== Your sources are practically useless, given you are citing almost indisputable facts that I have never contended. They neither develop/defend a claim with their presence, but seemingly serve to be an intellectual side dish if I wanted to learn about something new. I'm not trying to be rude, but frankly I don't find much of an edge your sources give. As for the rest, my conclusion should be straightforward.