Resolved: It is immoral not to extend rights to living animals.

Definitions: Immoral: Immoral is a word that is negatively defined; it is something which is not moral. I find this to be the only definition which is acceptable. If ‘bad behavior’ is defined in such a way that it refers to a breach of morality than I would agree with my opponent’s definition. Extend: I agree Rights: I disagree entirely. To define rights as ‘the abilities to live and be free from suffering’ is self-defeating, since no living thing which is capable of suffering is free from it. Under this definition, rights cannot exist because they would contradict the facts of reality. Everyone on earth would be deprived of rights, making the concept meaningless. Living animals: There are some animals which cannot respond to their environment but which are alive (unconscious animals, for example). I prefer my definition for this reason. Standard: The standard implicit in the resolution appears to be morality, which need not be utilitarian. And the consideration of the benefit to animals in the assessment of whether or not rights ought to be extended to them is illogical, given that if my position is true then there is no reason for humans to concern themselves with the welfare of animals unless it benefits them to do so. My standard is simply whether or not extending rights to animals is moral. Plan: My opponents plan would appear to be: 1. If the endangered species act is beneficial, then extending rights to animals is beneficial. 2. The endangered species act is beneficial. 3. Therefore extending rights to animals is beneficial. This argument takes the following form: 1. If P, then Q 2. P 3. Therefore Q Modus ponens is a valid argument form; therefore my argument will focus on whether or not the premises are true. 1. If the endangered species act is beneficial, then extending rights to animals is beneficial. I would argue that this premise is not true. The EDA being beneficial may not be because it extends rights to animals. My opponent must also prove not only that the EDA is beneficial because it extends rights to animals, but that it extends rights to animals in the first place. As far as I can see my opponent focuses entirely on proving his second premise while neglecting this rather critical aspect of his argument. 2. The endangered species act is beneficial. This will be dealt with by the addressing of my opponent’s various contentions. But overall I do not contest this at all. Burdens: The Pro burden is that failure to extend the Endangered Species Act does more harm than good (as dictated by my definition of “immoral” and by my plan). My opponent must also support the first premise of his argument (addressed above) in order for the conclusion to follow. The Con burden is that extending basic rights to animals does overwhelmingly more harm than good for humans and animals (the framework of the debate). I have already addressed how requiring a person arguing against the morality of animal rights to prove that their stance provides a utilitarian benefit to animals is irrational. Contentions: 1. My only qualm with my opponent’s arguments are that they are not sourced, making it very difficult for me to examine them in the first place. All of these contentions support my opponent’s second premise, while it is the first that I take issue with. 2. My opponent assumes that the only way to maintain biodiversity is to extend basic rights to animals. Yet it is his own argument which demonstrates that it is in the best interest of humans to maintain biodiversity, meaning that the utility of animals to human beings is a sufficient reason to prevent extinction and that it is not necessary to extend them rights. 3. My opponent has offered no support for the notion that rights are based on the ability to think and have complex thoughts. As my argument examines in detail, rights have an extensive framework based on the capacity of human beings to enter into a social contract. To take the term right, with all of the moral force which it acquires due to this framework, and then to apply it in a way with no relation to that framework and with no justification for doing so constitutes a fallacy of equivocation. The arguments from compassion and equality are also inadequate. Certainly many moral systems hold that this is true. But all do not. If my opponent wishes to make this argument he will need to deal with the many systems, such as rational egoism and enlightened self-interest, which reject this concept. Otherwise he is resorting to an argumentum ad populum. 4. The first argument which my opponent makes is a complete non-sequitur. He fails to demonstrate why the fact that non-human animals and humans belonging to the same clade necessitates the application of rights, a human concept developed to organize human governments, to animals. Or why failing to care for an ostrich or an ape is analogous to not caring for a mother or sister-in-law. I care for my mother because she if of immense personal value to me. Apes and ostriches have value to me only so far as they are useful to me. And if this is true then the same extends to insects and other invertebrates seeing as they, too, are animals. Spraying for cockroaches would be deemed genocide. His second argument is a misapplication of the term social contract. A dog is trained not to bite humans. He does not recognize the overarching philosophical principles involved and then agree to surrender his right to do so. This is a dangerous position to take, as there are plenty case of dogs attacking their owners due to a human’s mistaken anthropomorphization of their pets. [1] And anyone who owns a cat knows that they certainly do not subscribe to any sort of social contract theory. The last point is, in effect, an argumentum ad novitatem, an appeal to newness or modernity. This is a logically fallacious argument. My opponent’s final statement is interesting due to the nature of his standard. I would argue that taking a utilitarian standpoint and then prohibiting your opponent from addressing the most glaringly negative impacts of the extension of rights to animals defeats the purpose of adopting utility as the standard of value in the first place. [1] http://p-a-c-k.org...