Animal Rights

IntroductionThe issue of animal rights is a pressing issue in today's society, especially based on the battle between the "abolitionist movement" which seeks to establish self-ownership in non-human individuals and the anthropocentrists, who seek to uphold that humans are intrinsically superior to animals. Since I was very young, I have been disturbed by animal cruelty and have since adopted a worldview of being strongly supportive of animal rights, and, later, other social issues regarding discrimination.I will establish the procedural matters, by analyzing the resolution (henceforth "the res.") and the burdens required of each side. The res. states: "Animals should have rights." The terms have been defined by Con in Round 1. I will, therefore, analyze the burdens of proof/persuasion (hereinafter "the BOP"). Pro's BOP is to show that some non-human animals should have their rights recognized by society; Con's BOP is to show that society should not recognize non-human animal rights. The BOP is split evenly between both sides, since the res. demands recognition of a normative issue (read: whether it is desirable to recognize animal rights, or whether such an obligation rests on society). Normative issues are those based on desirability/obligation. The Oxford Dictionary defines "normative" as "establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of behaviour." This means normative issues are those that seek a certain standard to be established. As such, "burden of proof" in this debate is a misnomer; there is nothing to "prove." What Pro and Con have to do is establish positive reasons to affirm or negate the resolution. The resolution has three parts: "animals," "should have," and "rights." Part 1 refers to, as defined in R1, non-human species of the kingdom Animalia. The resolution requires me only to prove that *some* animals, rather than *all,* should have rights. "Animal rights" still exist on the recognition of the rights of even *some* animals. "Should have," as seen above, establishes that this is a normative res. It means we are looking at what is desirable for society to do or acts as an obligation of society. Rights are, as seen in R1, dues. My BOP is to affirm all parts of the resolution: I need to show that it is an obligation/it is desirable by a certain standard for society to recognize the rights of animals. Con's BOP is to negate any part of the res.: he needs to show either that these rights should not be for animals, that recognizing these rights is undesirable for society, or that animals don't have rights in the first place to recognize. ThesisGerman-American physicist Albert Einstein said, "Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." As I agree with him, I strongly affirm the resolution, that society should recognize animal rights. Society should recognize animal rights because: (1) it is unjust and irrational to apply an inconsistent standard between humans and animals when they lack morally relevant differences, (2) fairness is critical to moral pursuit and it is unfair to deny animals rights, and (3) recognizing some rights of animals would actually benefit human society with little foreseeable harms that are outweighed. The premise of this debate is whether it is moral or within society's interests to recognize animal rights. Morality, by definition, is the medium for obligations to exist. The usage of the word "should" in the res. implies obligation, and morality is the standard by which to judge obligations. As such, society should judge what it "should" or "ought to" do by moral standards. The criterion to fulfill the premise is utility. Utility is defined as maximization of positive mental states (e.g., pleasure, fulfillment) and minimization of negative ones (e.g., suffering, sadness). Utilitarianism, the criterion that seeks to fulfill utility, holds that all sentient beings have interests and their interests have to be weighed equally against each other. My first contention will affirm this criterion as the best one to judge the premise, and in the process link it to animal rights, so I will not focus on that justification here. The status quo recognizes animal rights in most places. There are animal welfare laws in almost every country. The res. only requires me to uphold that some animal rights be recognized. As such, even if I uphold the status quo, judges should vote Pro on account of my proving that animal rights should be recognized. Note that this does not mean the burden is on Con; as clarified above, the BOP is shared since the status quo is not self-justifying. UtilityThere is no rational reason to acknowledge human rights and not acknowledge animal rights. It is an assumption within this debate that human rights are recognized, as seen within the definition of "animal." As such, critiquing human rights would be criticizing the res. rather than fulfilling a positive burdne. This isn't sufficient since kritiks are prohibited by the rules.Utilitarianism (util) in all its forms require equal recognition of interests of beings that don't have morally relevant differences. I argue that animals and humans don't have such morally relevant differences. The reason for that is that humans are also of the kingdom Animalia, and they are merely a species, of millions or even billions of species. A split between humans and other animals doesn't make sense, because there's nothing that makes humans unique outside of what makes any other species unique based on physiological traits. The only sound way to differentiate between humans and non-human animals morally is based on rationality. But there's no logical reason to believe that rationality is a criterion for rights. Currently, even those that are severely mentally enfeebled sufficient to be non-rational are granted some basic rights such as the right to life and right against torture. Similarly, animals -- which are of similar mental states -- should be granted such basic rights (except in extenuating circumstances, e.g. animal testing). Outside of rationality, humans and animals are essentially the same psychologically, since they are able to experience pain and pleasure -- both of which are important in intuitive moral calculations. [1] Pleasure is inherently valuable in itself, since humans and animals both seek to maximize this pleasure. The same way, suffering is inherently undesirable, and both humans and animals seek to avoid it. Since nature offers the most coherent framework for morality, pleasure and suffering (read: positive and negative mental states) should be the basis to decide on moral actions. That is utilitarianism. Based on util, both animals and humans have similar interests: to maximize pleasure and minimize harm. This should be reflected in moral consideration. Since humans and animals are psychologically the same outside of rationality (and rationality isn't a sound basis for recognizing morality, because there's no reason to do so, and even animals have such subtle, unique psychological differences, e.g., stronger senses), they should all be considered individuals of a certain class X. Under util, "X" has a consistent value. As such, they should be valued equally, since it would be incoherent to state:X = 100X = 100X = 100000X = 100Giving humans alone greater value over all species that can feel positive and negative mental states (read: are sentient) is incoherent and intellectually dishonest. Therefore, make animals and humans subject to the same principle of utility. FairnessHumans inherently value fairness. As established above, whatever is natural for people to care about establishes a sound framework for morality. Moral realism is best affirmed under a framework of positive and negative mental states. Respecting fairness and equality creates such a mental state. Under util, most people wouldn't appreciate discrimination against African-Americans or against women; racism and sexism are almost universally rejected, because they are unsound. To ensure that standard remains, it should be consistent. As established above, there are no morally relevant differences between humans and animals, so the same standard of equality should be applied. Benefits to HumansRecognizing some animal rights will benefit human society greatly. For instance, some animal rights (e.g., the Endangered Species Act) will have economic benefits. Extending rights to animals will also benefit human health. When a species becomes extinct, the ecosystem around it eventually falls apart. There exist "keystone species," such as lions, that are responsible for preserving ecosystems. Biodiversity loss is a driver of ecosystem change. [2] Ecosystem change will have severe adverse affects to humanity. What are the harms of ecosystem collapse? Collapsing ecosystems will result in greater carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, thus trapping further heat. Global warming is a fact, and at the current rate of global warming, the Earth could soon become uninhabitable to humans. [3] Ecological collapse could also cause mass-extinctions, outbreaks, and deprive humans of land, clean air, and food security. As such, recognizing rights of endangered species is important. For these reasons, vote Pro. [1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...