Zaradi's Prized Tournament: Animal Rights

I thank bsh for instigating. We have also accepted prior to the debate that all humans have rights unless forfeited through immoral actions, such as murder. C1) A pragmatic case against animal rights Of course, since philosophy isn’t my strong suit, I would have to have some contention relying upon actual evidence and talk about how recognizing animal rights would harm society. This argument is a utilitarian argument. I am arguing recognition of animal rights would harm society. a) Animal Testing Although many dispute the morality of animal tests, it is undisputed that these tests save lives. Many things done to animals during these tests would be illegal and immoral to do to humans. They are often kept in captivity their entire lives and even their children can be studied over many generations. Scientists can control their environment, including food intake, temperature, and lighting. Even assuming that most of the tests do not harm animals, there are indisputably some which put the animal into pain. The Humane Society argues many animals are killed in painful ways during animal testing. Animals are often exposed to toxic chemicals, exposed to dangerous drugs, experience genetic manipulation, have ears or tails clipped for identification, deprived food and water, and the list continues. There have been cases of animals being killed by “carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means.” [1. http://www.hsi.org...] But most serious scientists do not oppose animal testing. Animals are essential for breakthrough research which has the capacity to save human life. Much of what we know about HIV/AIDS is known through research of the equivalent disease found in primates. Research of cancer in mice actually is giving promising results in regards to combating cancer through gene therapy. Polio vaccines were developed through animal testing. In fact, “virtually every medical breakthrough in human and animal health has been the direct result of research using animals.” [2. http://ca-biomed.org...]. Animal testing cannot exist if we recognize animal rights. Animal testing would be directly prohibited under any regime which recognizes an animal’s right. A just society should NOT recognize animal rights in order to promote developments of future medical breakthroughs which will save millions of lives. To support animal rights is to doom people in the future with diseases to death, which infringes upon human rights, the accepted premise. To oppose animal rights is to support the advancement of human well being. b) Sustenance There is an extreme example as well as a moderate example which will be used. An extreme example would be pointing to countries where access to non-animal sustenance is scarce. In, say, the Sahara access to any food--meat or otherwise--is very limited. A society springing up in this area would have to forgo recognition of animal rights as their people would need to eat. Any food found, whether it be a seed or an animal, would be fair game in order to prevent starvation. Accepting animal rights in this situation would lead to starvation and maybe even death. Societies in areas where farmland is impractical and trade is difficult would need to rely upon animals being killed in order to survive. So in this situation, a just society would not recognize animal rights in order to help the people living in the community. But this example does not apply to much of the known world. Although applying to parts of Canada, Alaska, Africa, and Siberia, most of the world can either produce enough vegetarian food to feed its populace or import goods in order to feed it’s populace. Even assuming meat is not necessary, it is still in the society’s interest to oppose animal rights. A review of the research has found moderate red-meat consumption “may positively influence nutrient intakes and fatty acid profiles, thereby impacting positively on long-term health.” [3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...] Consumption of animals can enhance human flourishing. The mere fact that red-meat consumption benefits people--even when vegetarianism is possible--supports the argument that a society can justify the opposition to animal rights because opposing them benefits people like you and me. It should be noted my C1 relies upon the accepted premise: that people have rights. I have proven recognition of animal rights harms people and infringes upon their right to life, human flourishing, and future prosperity. If bsh argues the suffering of animals is justified as it benefits humanity, he is conceding that humans are superior to animals. If this is true, any discrimination against animals is justified because we are inherently different. And different things deserve different treatment. C2) Animals are not part of the ‘moral community’ While I have proven recognition of animal rights is unjust because it tramples upon the rights of humans, I will also provide a more traditional argument against animal rights. Before explaining how animals are not part of the ‘moral community’, I need to define what a community even is. To do this, take religious status. You have to be religious in order to be in a religious community. You must identify with the Catholic Church in order to be part of a Catholic community. So moral status--which translates into a ‘moral community’--is especially important for this debate. The question both bsh and I must answer is simple: is the moral status of animals high enough in order to give them basic rights (e.g. life). It should also be noted being part of a moral community does not mean you automatically qualify for the possession of rights. In a community there can be various degrees of importance. A school president has more importance than a janitor in an educational community. So even if bsh proves animals are part of the moral community, he must also prove that they are worthy of acquiring actual rights. So I will argue the requirements to be part of the moral community--which is required in order to prove animals ought to have recognized rights--is not fulfilled by animals. Animals simply do not meet the requirements to be part of the moral community. Animals are not part of the moral community because they are not of a rational kind. To enter a University, you must meet minimum requirements in order to be part of the University. In a similar fashion, animals must meet standards in order to have moral worth. We can only understand who can and cannot become a member based upon how the group is structured and what common factors the group is formed around. The moral community is structured around morality. Morality, simply defined, is ‘good’. So in order to be part of a moral community, you must promote (or accept) things which are loosely defined as ‘good’. This is why people like murderers forfeit their right to life, because they do not recognize good and bad acts in the same way as the community. Animals, on the other hand, are not rational creatures. Being rational is important in regards to moral standing because, as stated, the point of morality is to pursue goodness. Animals, as they are not rational, are incapable of pursuing any moral concepts. They are unable to act, understand, or pursue goodness. Lacking these qualities makes it impossible for animals to be part of the moral community. “The moral community is likewise organized around something shared in common by all of its members. This common factor is none other than the capacity for rational agency. … the capacity for rational agency is both necessary and sufficient for having moral status … rational agency is a necessary condition for having any sort of moral standing.” [4. http://www.academia.edu... (forthcoming)]. Bearers of rights must have the capacity to understand and exercise the rights they have been given. Because of this, animals do not and cannot have have rights. When using animals for, say, experimentation, no rights are infringed because “they have noneto violate.” [7. http://people.ucalgary.ca...] It is hard to deny human exceptionalism--which is the counter label to the name “speciesism”. Humans are rational, animals simply are not. “What other species builds civilizations, records history, creates art, makes music, thinks abstractly, envisions and fabricates machinery, improves life through science and engineering, or explores the deeper truths found in philosophy and religion? … Perhaps most crucially, what other species can be held to moral account?” [5. https://www.nationalreview.com...] Legal structures around the world are made by humans and for humans. Animals cannot have rights because rights are inherently human. They were made in the realm of human morality, and are only applicable in our world [6. http://www.regent.edu...]. This further points to the simple fact that animals are not part of the moral community or even close to the same moral worth as a person--who has rights. Humans are simply superior to animals, and animals cannot be treated equally. Animals do not fit the requirements of a moral community, and thus do not qualify for rights.