Animal rights are meaningless from a secular viewpoint

I thank Con for a very interesting first debate for me on DDO! For this round, I will summarize many of the arguments that have been made as I debate them in this round, since it is the last round. Therefore, this speech will be substantially longer than those that I’ve had before. Con's Arguments: Argument 1: Con's first argument was that secular people are statistically more law-abiding than non-secular people. He mentions social contract, which I shall define using the Oxford Dictionary: “An implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection.” My opponent states that social contract is a combination of all morals made up in a society: this is debatable. Nevertheless, I agree with Con that humans in a society sacrifice individual freedoms in return for the state’s protection of their remaining rights. However, I point out that animals are not active members in our society, and so this argument still falls flat. Animals do not voluntarily sacrifice freedom in return for state protection. Social contract, therefore, does not apply to animals. The comparison between secular people avoiding the harm of other humans in order to preserve their own rights and secular people avoiding the harm of animals to preserve their own rights does not stand. Therefore, this argument doesn't explain why animal rights should not be violated. Argument 2: Con’s second argument is one of consequentialism. The basic idea, as I understand it, is that humans should not harm animals because it gives them no benefit. As Con puts it, “most humans would see no benefit in harming animals to the point of cruelty”. Again, I agree with this statement. However, not all rights are put in place simply because violating them doesn't benefit the perpetrator. An obvious example is rape. Any civil human would agree that I have a victim has the right not to be raped, even if the perpetrator won't be caught, and even if he enjoys it. The point is, failing to see a benefit in doing something does not equal a moral obligation not to do it. In the case of animals, just because most humans see no benefit in treating animals cruelly does not mean it is morally wrong. Con’s argument is a good one against flat out animal cruelty, but it does not apply to this topic. Argument 3: As I understand, Con intends to undermine religion in order to advocate secularism. In Round 2, he cites the Jewish Torah/Christian Bible in saying that they do not promote animal rights. I would first like to point out that Judaism and Christianity are not the only religions. Buddhism, for example, encourages its followers to inflict a minimal amount of harm to animals. Even if Con’s argument that religion doesn't promote animal rights was valid, this does not apply to the topic. We are not arguing about secularism, but rather animal rights from the perspective of secularism. Con begins by stating that Judaism/Christianity don't promote animal rights. As I stated above, these are not the only religions – however, let’s say I gave Con the claim that no religion promotes animal rights, and secularism is the only belief system that promotes animal rights. So what? You cannot conclude anything about the existence of animal rights through that statement alone. Therefore, I still hold that this argument fails. Argument 3.5(?): Con goes on to talk about my attack on morals being arbitrary from his POV. This is a different argument from the one before, so I’ve put it under a different heading. He basically states (here and elsewhere) that people derive their morals from society. (This would be a very interesting debate topic. However, it is not this debate topic.) If secular people do derive their morals from society, as Con says, that doesn’t necessarily mean that their morals will tell them to avoid harming animals. This brings us back to the original debate: whether or not there is moral reason to avoid harming animals. Argument 4: Con attacks my claim, in which I say that I never stated that secular people have no moral guidance. If I am arguing that secular people have moral guidance, he says, then why can’t they believe in animal rights? The answer to his question is what I’ve been arguing the entire time. Pro’s argument is that secular people have no need to follow animal rights, not whether or not they have moral guidance. I certainly do not believe that all secular people are inhumane robots. Pro’s Argument: In round 2, I used natural selection as my main argument when I introduced it. Firstly, I would like to note that natural selection is not a belief that only atheists hold – plenty of religious people have no issue with harmonizing their faith with the Theory of Evolution either. (E.g.: Francis S. Collins, geneticist and leader of the Human Genome Project.) Therefore, when I presented this argument, I did not, in any way, mean to associate the ToE with secularism or atheism. I simply assumed, and this I believe I did quite logically, that a secular opponent would believe in evolution. Since Con evidently does not want me to use ToE as an argument, so I revised my argument in round 3. While ToE is highly controversial, basic survival of the fittest in the natural world is a widely accepted fact, and I don’t expect Con to argue it. This does not greatly affect my original argument, since the main aspect of ToE which I originally used for my argument was survival of the fittest anyway.Therefore, my case follows: Throughout the natural world, animals and sometimes humans (e.g.: those that are isolated from civilization) compete for survival. In this process, morality is absent. Therefore, there is no visible reason to see why this should be changed, or why we should treat animals differently. Con’s Attacks on Pro’s Case: Con has attacked my case with three different arguments. Argument 1: Con attacks my supposed claim that animals cannot coexist peacefully in round 2. I never made this claim. What I said was that some animals kill each other for survival (which Con recognized in round 2). It is also worth noting that not all violent actions animals make are necessary for survival: an example is infanticide. Hanuman langurs are an example. Clearly, the animal committing the act of infanticide is not considering the rights of the offspring he is killing, and so my point of lack of morality in the absent world stands. Argument 2: My opponent’s point about evolution was valid, and, as stated above, I dropped ToE from my argument and replaced it with basic survival of the fittest, which doesn’t really affect my argument. I believe this is in order. I chose a scientifically observed fact that is universally accepted. Thus my argument stands. Argument 3: Con criticizes me in both rounds for using natural selection as a base, even after I dropped it. He has yet to present an argument against survival of the fittest. He makes two other claims in round 3: -The whole framework of his case refutes natural selection by default;It doesn't. Natural selection is not refuted by my case. I happen to have no problem with the theory of evolution. -…his case contradicts natural selection. According to ToE animals must be killed/eaten ... But he states: “...an animal's 'right' to not be killed remains violable.”;This is not a contradiction. The definition of violable is “capable or likely to be violated”. In this case I mean that the animal’s ‘right’ to be killed and eaten can be violated. Conclusion: Overall, I must say this has been a very interesting debate, and once again I thank Con for accepting. I have defended my case. I hold that my argument stands against Con’s attacks on it, and I believe I have successfully refuted Con’s arguments in light of the resolution. Therefore, I urge a vote for Pro. Thank you for your time. Sources: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... http://www.hoglezoo.org...