Resolved: Animal Rights Ought To Be Recognized In Society

Morality I will provide you with an argument that will convince an amoralist or egoist that she should be moral. Alas, no such argument has yet been found, although great philosophers have tried, and I will sketch some attempts. By moral I take it that you mean acting for the sake of others rather than purely selfishly. And I take it that you accept it is best for an amoralist to live in a society where others are moral, all the better to exploit them, rather than in a society of each against all in which life is ‘solitary, violent, nasty, brutish and short’ as Hobbes puts it. In short, you ask why shouldn’t I be a ‘sensible knave’ as Hume puts it, acting morally when it suits me, even gaining a reputation as a moral person, but acting immorally if it’s to my advantage and I think I can get away with it. Of course morality is the norm. Rather like language, it comes naturally to us with exposure to instances in childhood reinforced by teaching. But to give an account in terms of evolved human nature is to explain it. What concerns us here is to justify it, to find good reasons for being moral. Three main arguments have been put forward to justify morality. 1. God commands it 2. Happiness requires it3. Acting immorally is irrational 1. God commands it. But we have no good reason to believe in God, or that God must have moral rules, or that we can know about these. Even if they existed, why should we obey them? God’s being our creator, or loving us, don’t seem good reasons. Hope of heaven or fear of hell appeal to expediency or self-interest, not to morality. We might follow the rules because they are good rules. But then appeal to divine command is redundant — God (if good) commands the rules because they are good, rather than the rules being good because God commands them, as Socrates famously argues in Euthyphro. Even for monotheists, divine command is an unsatisfactory basis for morality. Thus Aquinas held that the moral law, albeit God’s law, stands up on rational grounds alone. Despite its philosophical shortcomings, divine command is given as a reason for being moral by many monotheistic religious persons, some citing fear of God as the incentive. But it cuts no ice for everybody else, including the amoralist. 2. Happiness requires it. This is the answer of Aristotle and of modern virtue ethics. Having regard to human nature (as rational, social, child-rearing mammals) we identify the chief good for humans as ‘eudaimonia’ (flourishing, living and doing well), achieved in a community, and characterized as ‘rational activity of the soul in accordance with virtue’ (Aristotle). A virtuous life is the most fulfilled one — most of the virtues are centred on others’ welfare, and the fulfilled life is not one of (only) self-interest. Whether virtue is necessary for eudaimonia is arguable. Socrates thought so. In Plato’s Republic, in response to the challenge of Glaucon/ Adeimantus, he argues for the extreme position that the just (moral) man, even if considered unjust, reviled and rejected by society, is nevertheless happier than the unjust man with a reputation for justness who is respected and lives comfortably. Here, Socrates goes too far, but there is much in the view that the villain who appears to flourish as the green bay tree is not really happy. A view forcefully put by the late Phillipa Foot and with which I have much sympathy. Here we hold, with Plato, that the ruthless, wealthy mobster, surrounded by minders, forever alert for attempts to deceive, ruin or kill him, is ignorant of what constitutes real happiness. Eudaimonic considerations can provide justification of the moral life to some people. To me, for one. 3. Acting immorally is irrational. This is one strand in the above eudaimonic argument, but is a view particularly held by Kant: the moral law is what we legislate for ourselves as rational autonomous beings, so that, as rational agents, we follow it, and to do otherwise is irrational. The argument essentially is as follows: P1: my interests matterP2: others are relevantly similar to meConclusion: others’ interests matter as much as mine But the amoralist can simply interpret P1 as ‘my interests matter to me’, and P2 as ‘others’ interests matter to them’ which does not entail that others’ interests matter to me. But now, if the amoralist holds that her pain is really bad (as opposed to bad for her) or resents others for not helping her, she would show practical irrationality. In conclusion, there is no knockdown logical argument that can convince a determined egoistic, amoral, ‘sensible knave’ to be moral. But, here, we are no worse off than trying to convince the determined sceptic that the external world exists. As Hare said, ‘Ask not ‘how do I convince the amoralist to be virtuous?’, but rather ‘how do we mostly bring up our children?”. Most of us accept that we have reason to be moral (as we accept the existence of the external world), otherwise why would we teach our children to be so. It is the best way to a fulfilled life, though bad luck can ruin things, and avoids practical irrationality that intellectually honest persons would wish to avoid. Needless Suffering Definition: Unnecessary pain or distress. We have been given the ability to care and feel emotions. It is highly illogical (as I have explained) to say that we should ignore our responsibility to remove needless and pointless suffering. Why shouldn't we help animals. If you were in their situation and you were suffering does that mean that it is not okay to help you. Whilst it is commonly believed that animals cannot feel emotion however one emotion that animals most definitely can feel is pain! Pain can be considered to have two components: (1) physical hurt or discomfort caused by injury or disease; and (2) emotional suffering. Most people would agree that animals are capable of feeling pain according to the first definition. But it is less clear whether they also feel emotional pain. Since we are not debating about emotion pain this point is irrelevant however cause 1 is important since there is scientific evidence suggesting that this is true. Responsibility This does only apply to humans. My opponent claim that none of my sources refer to love and compassion however I'm interested in his response to this since my 2nd source provided is called "Charter for Compassion". Here is the link again in case that you missed it: http://charterforcompassion.org... Here are some further links to this in case it is still unclear: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://greatergood.berkeley.edu...Since my opponent has failed to properly respond to this due to their misunderstanding regarding sources I will allow them to use the next round to refute this argument.Rebuttal 1 - Dead and Exploited Animals are Useful: Under egoism animals are essential for human survival. Whilst animal testing has been beneficial and meat is a major food source. We could still survive (as a species) without animal testing and meat. Without animals we will die. Animals are necessary for human survival and I will back this claim up with a few examples: Termites are detritivores and decomposers, meaning they consume decomposing plant matter and play vital roles in recycling ecosystem energy, as well as in balancing biogeochemical cycles. Unlike other detritivores, the termite gut is unique in that it contains microorganisms that break down cellulose (building blocks for plants), which is indigestible without this symbiotic relationship. Think about it … what would we do without termites to clean up all the decomposing material? We might drown is cellulose-based litter, like autumn leaves and tree branches! Frogs act as bio-indicators, which means they indicate the health of their ecosystems. How? Frog skin is very porous and permeable, allowing substances present in the environment to be absorbed within their fatty tissues. Since these amphibians have the ability to live terrestrially and aquatically, they can indicate contamination dilemmas for both habitats. Since frogs will most often be the first animals to react to biological hazards, they are helpful for warning humans to take action. Though not as effective as bats, frogs do help in insect control. They are also a food source to many carnivorous species and are needed for maintaining balanced ecosystems. Rebuttal 2 - Impossible Without Going Extinct or Killing Most of the World: Whilst I agree that the current system of gaining meat is wrong and I would prefer it, if those capable would choose not to eat meat it is evident that it is unrealistic to stop everybody from not eating meat. I never proposed that eating meat is wrong and in extreme circumstances I agree that it is acceptable just like I'm sure that you also believe that if you saw a dying animal in the street and you knew that the person in the house nextdoor could treat animals you would go to him. I am sure that you do not have the intention of wanting to harm all animals. Just as I do not have the intention of protecting all animals so much as to put a large amount of human lives at risk. I agree that meat does have unique nutrients however all of these nutrients can be achieved through tablets if you really need or want them, however, these are not esseential nutrients since otherwise vegetarians and vegans would not exist. Sourceshttp://www.onegreenplanet.org...http://www.bbc.co.uk...http://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk...