Animal Rights

PrefaceMy response will be in two sections. Rebuttals; where I attack my opponent’s case. And defense; where I defend my arguments. Since this is the final round I will not bring up any new arguments. RebuttalsP4) Existence of human rights necessitates abstention from infringing upon the rights of other humans. Con argues that if rights can be violated they are worthless. It follows that since they have no worth, they cannot claim moral worth, and thus it cannot be a right since the right would claim no moral value. Although rights are violated they still possess worth. Every time a right is violated, this signifies that the violating act is immoral. We are immoral every time we eat an animal or a plant. Are humans inherently immoral then? Maybe. But it doesn’t matter, I still uphold the resolution. Since rights entail worth, they can claim it as their right. P7) If living is what entitles an entity to rights, then both plants and animals have the same rights as humansSadly, Pro still fails to justify P7. Just because you can substitute any property into Pro’s argument and it still works does not justify “living” as a moral status grounding property. It's a bare assertion, as is saying that the color purple is a moral status grounding property. Argument from Marginal CasesCon’s entire rebuttal is pointing out that I have not shown that morality should be based off suffering, and thus that it is a bare assertion. But I did show that morality should be based off suffering, under my defense of “Argument from Suffering”, premise 2. This is bad for Con, for his entire rebuttal was based off this notion. Thus, his entire rebuttal can be thrown out. When Con proposed that the property that animals lack is a conscience choice to obey society’s rules, I showed that the majority of non-humans demonstrably do show a willingness to obey society’s rules. Con responded by saying that animals do not consciously choose to do this. But he does not give explanation beyond that. This can immediately be thrown out as a bare assertion. Regardless, we are talking about whether animals can make a conscious decision to follow the rules of society. This is demonstrably true given that some choose not to. This is where you get the “lone wolf”. Bees that are lazy are not being productive are exiled from the hive [1]. If Con is right, and animals do not consciously choose to follow rules of society, and do it rather with instinct, we would see every organism following society’s rules; its instinct. This is proven false, as some organisms choose to leave. Argument from SufferingCon responds to my argument that morality is based off suffering by arguing that morality is subjective, giving examples of church tithes, and parents saving the life of a child. Yet in both these instances, they are considered moral to reduce suffering. Christians and Muslims paying church tithes leads to intense pleasure in heaven, as well as reduced chance of extreme suffering in hell. The small loss of money is worth the extreme pleasure. Thus it is moral. In the case of the parents; not saving their child would lead to intense suffering by the parents as a result of losing a child, as well as intense guilt for not having saved her. In all instances, beings do a cost-benefit analysis, and decide based on pleasure-to-suffering whether something is desirable or undesirable, and thus moral and immoral. Con then says that I provide no reasoning for why suffering is immoral. But I did; suffering is an undesirable state. It is undesirable for the person experiencing the negative mental state. Morality is recognizing what is desirable and undesirable. Any moral obligation is to do a morally desirable action, or prevent a morally undesirable action. Preventing a morally undesirable state such as suffering is a moral obligation. Con then argues that my argument does not justify that:A) suffering morally must be prevented. Suffering is an undesirable state. Morality is recognizing what is desirable and undesirable. Any moral obligation is to do a morally desirable action, or prevent a morally undesirable action. Preventing a morally undesirable state such as suffering is a moral obligation. B) how equal moral worth is determined. Whether the being possesses a morality grounding property. It is truism that humans already possess it because R1. It would not be any less morally wrong to kill a human if animals were granted the same status. C) how exactly rights can be sacrificed if they are truly universal or at least broadly classifiable to the level of all animals. This doesn’t make sense. Con does not make clear what rights are being sacrificed, I don’t understand the sentence. Con then says that it is too hard to measure suffering. But I’m going to subject to realism here; being literally skinned alive, butchered, scalded alive, suffocation, etc. This the most paramount level of suffering any being can ever experience. There is no arguing this, it is not up for debate, it is an objective fact. Con has not objected to the fact that animals feel pain just like humans do, though he questions to what level. It is the same level. Because of evolution, the mechanism of pain was developed. Animals that felt pain when they did something that harmed their bodies were more likely to not harm their bodies than those that did; and were more likely to survive. This susceptibility to pain was passed through the generations as it grew stronger and stronger. There is no reason to believe that non-humans do not feel the same amount of pain as humans, and Con provides no justification. How does he even know that his fellow humans feel pain? By external behavior such as wincing, moaning, etc. ? All of these are seen in animals. By evolution? Same deal. There is the same level of certainty that fellow humans feel pain (and the level), as do animals. Thus it is idiotic to assume that they don’t, and to a different level. The suffering that will ensue from the loss of luxury is minimal, and pales in comparison to the amount of suffering animals endure. This is truism. [1] . http://ext100.wsu.edu...