That society ought to recognize animal rights

Thanks for accepting, Zaradi. My apologies for forgetting to define "ought" (my opponent is absolutely spot on with this). My apologies also for any delays in posting my rounds - my final exams are taking some time away from me. My opponent is right in saying that I have zero intentions of running an abusive definition, but that should be self-evident from my case anyway.We are all differentYou've probably noticed that there are many different kinds of people in the world. These differences range from quite trivial things - what or skin or eye color is, for instance - to somewhat more important things - for instance, our age. Despite being somewhat different, however, we all have more or less the same rights. Some nations give their people more rights than others. People in certain circumstances (like children) are often given additional rights. But there are some basic rights we all have (there is, indeed, even a universal declaration of human rights - http://www.un.org...).It is irrational to give rights arbritrarily. Since we accept rights for people who look different, think different and act different, there is no justifiable criteria to discriminate between humans and animals. There are limits to this where such discrimination is possible. Giving chickens the right to vote, for instance, makes little sense because a chicken's brain is actually incapable of understanding what a vote is. In a similar way, seriously mentally retarded humans with the IQ of a chicken are usually prevented from voting. Here there is a justifiable criteria for why this right might not be extended to chickens. What makes the criteria justifiable is that it distinguishes between the human and the animal in a morally relevant way.Now take another example. Human kids and kittens both don't like to be tortured. They both feel pain and both are capable of suffering. Human kids and kittens are both able to be scarred for life. It may well be that human kids have less fur than your average kitten, but this is irrelevant to the issue of torture. There may be specific instances when some torture of a human kid or young cat is justified, but in general, there is no justifiable criteria to distinguish between them.Sentience, like that I just described, is of course just one example of the kinds of things we share with animals, but I'm mostly using it because it's relatively easy to prove and is used by most other animal rights activists. Hitting a dog with a stick will cause that dog to react, implying that the dog can feel the pain of being hit. Further investigation will reveal the dog reacts negatively to this pain. Anybody who doesn't believe me on this should find a dog and try to hit it with a stick. Philosophy aside about the degree to which dogs are conscious of that pain, the fact that they know it and suffer for it is pretty well documented - which is highly relevant because the same reason is why humans are free from torture (ie we don't like it either). Furthermore, consciousness has never been a criteria for rights. Knocking somebody out gives you no right to torture them.In at least this respect, then, we are NOT all different - the moral rules of why we should be given rights are generally generalisable to animals.Human ResponsibilityHaving said the above, I think I don't need to injure any more dogs to make anybody believe we are superior to animals in many respects. Elephants may be much bigger than us and possess bigger ears, but they don't build luxury sports cars for themselves or play elephant chess.This power leaves us with two alternatives. We could wield it to help animals, or we could use it to harm animals. Compassion, for the interests of animals, would be the driving factor in helping animals more, while human self-interest would be the reason for wielding this power to hurt animals. Whatever we decide here - helping or harming - is what we have a moral responsibility to do. If there are EVER any instances where the animal should be helped it is a privilege - if there are several such general instances it is a right. This might be a rather unusual causal link to make, so let me explain - take the right to life, for instance. The animal wants to live. Helping it (the compassionate alternative) means not to kill it. Harming it (the selfish alternative, for instance to provide a fur coat for yourself) means to kill it. At the point where you are not harming it, you are giving that animal the privilege of life. When that principle is applied fairly across many animals, it becomes a general principle for all such animals, such that it can be properly called a right those animals possess.My claim is that compassion is a more responsible alternative to self-interest. As the charter for compassion affirms: "Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensable to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community" (http://charterforcompassion.org...). Of course, just because it says that doesn't prove it's true, so what does?We now know quite scientifically that compassion - both towards other people and other animals - is better for us than self-interest. For instance, we know that compassion is positively correlated with happiness, healthiness, and attractiveness (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...). The idea that great power implies great responsibility is an extraordinarily popular one, and it seems, for good reason. Other research suggests that compassion is an evolved part of who we are (http://greatergood.berkeley.edu...). But these are simply the selfish reasons to be unselfish, which isn't a particularly great standard - if you include in your calculations not just how you benefit, but also how the animal benefits, then 99% of the time affording animals certain rights sounds pretty fair. Even if you don't accept this assessment, the notion that compassion is NEVER the better alternative towards animals in a given situation seems to me to be a mistaken one.Why we HAVE to do itMy opponent seems to want me to prove why we must be logically consistant or responsible. I'm not going to argue that we don't have free will. Most politicians are living proof that people can be both inconsistant and irresponsible at the same time. So let us entertain that thought for a moment. What would an inconsistant, irresponsible world look like? More importantly, would you like to live there? If not, then I'm afraid you're going to have to be a part of that change, and not be inconsistant or irresponsible. And that means you ought to recognise animal rights. It doesn't take much imagination to affirm that an irresponsible world, without the inconsistancy, probably isn't so good in terms of things people are wired up to like or value (their own lives, for example). Alternatively, an inconsistant, arbritrary world would be a place of infinite uncertainty. Put together, this is hardly what any person would consider what we "ought" to become. This might sound presumptious, but it is a general moral norm that most people would recognise. Naturally there are some people who would not - often those same people that don't believe these kinds of rights should be extended to humans either. This is why I said in round one that society must be taken in the most general possible sense.ConclusionThis debate is about whether we want to live in a fair, compassionate world or an unfair, self-interested one. I believe very strongly that there are certain ways we ought to treat each other - that's why we have rights at all. But there must be justifiable, relevant limits if we are not to extend these to animals. Even so, extending those rights to animals is still a nice, compassionate thing to do for those animals, which is in and of itself a moral good.