Humanity ought to allow animals access to basic rights.

Groundwork of rightsI do hope con doesn't play the nihilist card on me, but if so, I am willing, and I believe able, to establish the reality of basic rights in pertaining to human beings. My next job is obviously to demonstrate that animals also have those rights. I believe rights to be the very basis of any moral code. I also believe them to be probably the most self-evident, simple and easily substantiated moral facts there are. What gives us rights? Why do we posses them? As there are a number of different rights, there are also a number of different answers. The most easily demonstrated I believe is the concept of self-ownership. Self-ownership is the principle that we are, well simply, in ownership of our body. I do not think there is or will be any contention on this principle. It's rather evident. I own the lap-top I'm typing with right now because I bought it, made an agreement with the seller and claimed ownership. All the criteria for ownership are met. Self-ownership is even more obvious than material ownership. There is absolutely no other person, thing or being that would undermine my ownership of the self. (Unless perhaps you want to establish a creator, but unless my opponent wants to go dreadfully off topic, I dearly hope this debate doesn't stray there. ) It is implausible to say I do not have ownership of my body. It is after-all me. My consciousness inhabits it. My will guides it. My feelings are linked with it. Self-ownership is not in itself a right, it is important to note, but a principle that I believe quite evidently entails certain rights. Some of these rights will be listed further down below. More criteria for rightsConsciousness: None of all that would matter much I don't think if we weren't conscious in that you don't give rights to non-self aware things such as rocks and trees. Feeling: As feeling beings, we have certain reactions to occurrences. They may be negative or positive depending. But this tells us there is an interest involved in beings. As a whole, society also has an interest and the interest of society is basically an accumulation the interest of individuals. Intrinsic worth: We have worth because we have the power to act on choice. We are part of society and part of this world. Our actions shape the future and thus affect the overall goals of society causing us to have intrinsic worth. The main argumentP.1 Animals possess properties which fit the same criteria of rights that pertains to the human criteria for rights. P.2 Thus animals possess rights. P.3 Moral truths obligate recognition. P.4 Humans are obligated to recognize animal rights. P.5 Humanity ought to allow animals access to basic rights. Remember the criteria I laid out initially. It is my job to now demonstrate that animals fit the criteria. Self-ownership: As self-evident I believe this is for humans, I believe it also self evident for animals. Animals are the possessor of their self, not anyone else. Consciousness: Scientific evidence strongly supports the assertion that animals are conscious just like humans. “The weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness,[. .. .. .. . ]Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates. ”. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...For whatever animals it has been proved are conscious, it is more likely that all animals are conscious. And even if not all animals are conscious, we still have no way of knowing which ones aren't so we should treat them as they are all conscious which is likely any way. Feeling: It is rather obvious that animals posses feeling like we do. They suffer and experience joy or sadness. Intrinsic worth: Animals are part of the over-all society that inhabits the world. They are rational as seen especially in monkeys and elephants. They have interests just as we do. (Explained further below. )The rightsJus a few basic ones.1. The right to live (in absence of outweighing factors) Outweighing factors would be such as if you're about to kill ten people and someone with a gun can stop you by killing you. Your right is outweighed and the man has the right to shoot you. The animals desire to live conflicts with no other principle or factor that would cancel it out. The animal wants to live. There is no good reason to deny this right, thus it possesses the right to life unless it violates that. 2. The right to restricted freedomAll rights have restrictions it is important to note. Animals have the right of freedom to the self. As long as they are not violating anything else, they have the right to freely act. From self-ownership we know that they own their bodies. It is theirs, therefore they have rights pertaining to what they do with it. Now we obviously as a superior species, have rights over animals, so for example, we don't let our pets run away simply to give them the right to freedom. We have the right to stop them from doing that just as parents have rights over their children. 3. The right to act in accordance with ethically allowable desire If a being has an ethical desire, the creature has the right to act in accordance with that desire. Since the desire is ethical that means there is nothing morally or logically invalid about his desire. Basically a desire that has no outweighing trade-offs. This in itself basically states we have no moral justification in keeping them from this. As Peter Singer points out, animals have an interest in not suffering. We have no valid reason not to disallow that interest. Thus we should allow it. Obligation to recognize animal rights It has been established that animals have rights. Now I just need to show that mankind have an obligation to recognize or allow those rights. The argument flows quite logically I believe. Moral obligations to recognize facts exist within moral facts itself. That is why it's morality. Morality is concerned with how we should act thus outweighs everything else. Animals have rights. That is a moral assertion. Would it be moral or immoral to recognize these rights? It would obviously be moral as the rights themselves are moral, thus we have an obligation to do so. Unjust applicationOne of mankind's biggest faults is its bias to social category. You might argue that our moral framework is a human morality, therefore it doesn't apply to other species. Well, society used to hold that same view in pertaining to ethnicity instead of species. The blacks were thought to be inferior to the whites and so did not possess the same rights as the whites did. That assertion was used largely in support of slavery. If slavery did not have all the benefits to the landowners I would guess they would readily advocate the liberation of the slaves. It is my cogitation that if we did not all derive the benefits of our treatment to animals; if McDonald's suddenly stopped tasting so damned good, we would all be animal rights activists. Such is the nature of human selfishness. Our desire for meat in no way outweighs the animals desire to live. Hypothetical assessmentWhen determining a moral assertion I think a good way to come about establishing a conclusion is to take it hypothetically. Ask yourself, do I conceive of a world in which animals posses recognized rights to be more moral or more immoral? I cannot conceive of it being less moral. I can only conceive of it as being more moral. Thus I have personally met the very strong conviction that we have a moral obligation to assist in this quest for moral furtherance. It could not possibly be conceived as immoral. It doesn't make sense that it would be amoral. It is a moral progression and as moral beings we ought to contribute to it. Run out of space.