Resolved: Animal Rights Ought To Be Recognized In Society

Rebuttal 1-Morality: The essential problems with Pro’s argument are: A) he assumes that just because something is considered moral that means we (humans) “ought to” follow it and B) that we should grant these rights we’ve determined via our morals to animals. I’ll explain the problem with both. Morals were made by humans, there is no objective morality to follow. For example, murder is seen as an immoral act by most. For example, most people would never want to kill a child; however, if one could see into the future and know that the child was going to end up killing 5 people, it would make sense to kill said child (assuming each human life is equal). This already represents an example of why morals should not be followed absolutely. Overall, seeing as morals are made up there is no real reason we “ought to” follow them. Why should we force ourselves into such restrictions? Why should we even accept these morals as the “right” thing to do? Pro never addresses this and assumes we must accept these principles. Also, seeing as morality is completely made up by humans and was originally designed for humans, why should it now be applied to animals? A “society” or “community” does not have any particular reason to be interested in granting animals rights. Especially since societies typically benefit from exploiting or killing animals, why should they stop to fulfill morals that were originally designed for humans? If a human wants to protect his dog because the dog brings him happiness, protection, or whatever it would make sense. The person enjoys or otherwise benefits from having the dog, so he wants to protect the dog. However, why should the same person care about protecting a cow, especially if he enjoys having steak dinners? Seeing as the majority of the people in the world eat meat (while plenty of which, if not most) also enjoy eating it, why should they not kill cows for meat? Keep this idea in mind, as I’ll expand upon it in my arguments. Pro also prepares for an argument I won’t even make (about animals being irrational and therefore not deserving rights) and also shows time humans have done immoral actions. Again, this is irrelevant seeing as I’m not arguing based on morality. Rebuttal 2-Needless Suffering: Pro never defines needless suffering. However, Pro once again fails to address the fact that the moral to protect against suffering was made for humans. There’s no particular reason humans should feel obligated to expand that to animals. Pro also mentions a “just society” would protect animals against human suffering. The common definition for justified, according to Google is, “having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.” (1) If humans are doing something, there is going to be a reason, even if it seems absurd or stupid. Doing something because you have nothing better to do, is a legit reason for doing something. However, Pro will probably respond about being morally justifed. Again, why should humans follow said “morals” or why should they apply them to animals? Rebuttal 3-Responsibility: Pro actually does explain his argument here (compassion>selfishness), by saying that love towards humans and animals is better than selfishness, based on scientific findings. He presents a correlation that, “compassion and love is positively correlated with happiness and healthiness”. Just because a correlation exists doesn’t mean that the cause is due to that. Plus, none of his sources even mention compassion towards animals. For all we know, this only applies to humans. Argument 1-Dead and Exploited Animals are Useful: This is hard to deny, humans benefit from dead and exploited animals. The most obvious is via animal testing. Humans have greatly benefited in the past from testing on animals, curing diseases (such as polio), and are continuing to. (2) Plus, meat is a major food source, feeding billions of people. In fact, there are some people who depend on gaining access to meat via hunting (more on them later). (3) Finally, animal exploitation/death can offer humans enjoyment. Whether it be through the thrill of hunting, the entertainment some get from bullfighting, the happiness brought by clothing or furniture coming from dead animals, happiness of money made from profits in industries involving killing animals, etc. So why should society continue to exploit and kill animals? It is useful or can provide positive emotions to humans. A society consisting of humans should do what can be useful or provide positive emotions to its members. It is preferable because it allows a society to have more of members enjoy what is occurring and looks out for the interest of said society. Think of the hunters I mentioned previously. They’d all die if they couldn’t kill animals. This is an extreme example sure, but it is not in the best interest of that society to obey animal rights. Argument 2-Impossible Without Going Extinct or Killing Most of the World: There are certain nutrients that can only be gained via meat (vitamin B12, saturated fats, etc.) It is unrealistic to expect a population of 7 billion to supplement via yeast and other non-meat source. Also, soil requires nutrients. Fertilizers are typically made from bone meal, blood, and ash. (4) Synthetic fertilizers are made from fossil fuels and therefore are unsuitable and potentially dangerous to the environment (which could kill every animal and human). Plus, with more farmland not only do animals lose their habitats (almost defeating the purpose) they are also killed in clearing the land. (5) This definitely defeats the purpose. So in this case, humans will have to starve out most of the species and go back to the wild where they cannot hunt and have to eat completely vegetarian. This destroys society and is in no way worthwhile for humans. Sources: 1-https://www.google.ca... 2-http://www.ca-biomed.org... 3-http://www.huntercourse.com... 4-http://www.foodrenegade.com... 5-http://theconversation.com...