Resolved: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above Biocentrism.

My whole case wouldn't fit, so this isn't my actual finished case it's missing 3 cards oh well have fun. I affirm the resolution resolved: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above Biocentrism. Definitions: Anthropocentrism- enhancing and fostering humanity before the welfare of other beings Biocentrism- considering all forms of life as having intrinsic value. Ought- should Obsv 1: The Resolution doesn't call for enforcement. As the Affirmative I do not have to undertake the burden to enforce a standard which a man of strict honor and integrity would feel himself bound to fulfill. The performance, therefore, of many purely just obligations must be left to the good faith of the individual; and it is neither within the province nor the policy of the Affirmative to apply a metaphysical standard of justice to the conduct of men in their common relations of life. Moving on to the framework… Things are not equal; people are born with multiple talents and skills, others with none. Just as animals are unique and possess abilities that humans do not, and certain animals possess abilities others do not. This however doesn't mean anyone is superior to the other; we are simply different and have differing roles to fill due to merit. Social Darwinism, through which humans have also developed as a species with different merits than that of a three-toed sloth as well as others This however does not only apply to Humans, take for example we recognize the difference in merit between dolphins and cockroaches, because dolphins merit such based off of aesthetic value, and intellect, whereas cockroaches can outlive nuclear war. Animals have also gone extinct due to natural causes i.e. changes in weather or being out-powered by a stronger, smarter, faster animal, humans have merited their position in society by finding ways to survive simply better and develop qualities and traits others have not. Thus basing the assignments one is given is based on what he is due. If I'm the best debater at a tournament and beat everyone I should win because of such, giving what I'm due because its merits provide such rewards. Meritocracy is a system of a government or other organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities assigned to individuals based upon demonstrated talent and ability (merit). In a meritocracy, society rewards (via wealth, position, and social status) those who show talent and competence as demonstrated by past actions or by competition. This however does not lead to oppression or prevention of climbing any sort of social ladder, because people are being rewarded based on the work and competition they provide which merit their rewards. Giving what each is due achieves a Philosophical Justice as defined by Rawls' and Plato. Any potential harms of corruption are irrelevant when striving to achieve Philosophical Justice. For instance should you feed your baby? Of course, but if the baby choked on whatever it was you were feeding it and died, should we stop feeding our babies, because of the potential harms that could result? No. Much in the same way we must give a being what it is due according to its merit, as opposed to eluding Philosophical Justice when it is entirely possible to achieve. C1: Biocentrism's main thesis is false The main claim in negating any anthropocentric viewpoint is that it rejects the intrinsic value of anything and everything other than humans; this is false and goes unwarranted. A.T. Nuyen – Anthropocentrism is present when we ought to promote and enhance human good and dignity. It does not support abuse or mistreatment of animals; as such cruelties would increase such between people in society according to Immanuel Kant. Even further I'd say all species intrinsically values themselves, i.e. Humans say murder is bad. Killing off your own species is detrimental such as lions will tear through a pack of gazelle, but do not kill off themselves because; they recognize the value of the herd. I would say empirically this is false as well since in many developed countries there are laws against the mistreatment of animals. Second not only is there never any mechanism that Biocentrism provides as to how we intrinsically value things, how much value we assign, who assigns this value, why in an Anthropocentric world things are not intrinsically valued, and what happens when you don't intrinsically value something. Since there is no weighing mechanism ever provided within Biocentrism you have no way to weigh it against any sort of ideologue since in never presents you with any impacts as to what happens if you don't intrinsically value everything. Third, I'd say this argument prevents the Negative from even valuing Biocentrism in the first place, because they are saying humans don't intrinsically value things yet, they value Biocentrism, which states that all things must be viewed intrinsically, so either you drop their standard and I win, or they agree that humans do intrinsically value things other than humans, because their case is empirical proof as such and you turn any offensive ground they gain off this argument. C2: Humans possess the ability of reason, conscience, virtue, compassion, survive better, and can stop detrimental behavior. A)Rousseau's Rationalism which is elevated above mere intellectual reason looks to the value of the interrelationship of reason and conscience, for intellectual reason is also the power by which the primitive instinct for the good develops into full conscience. (Jean-Jacque Rousseau Second Discourse on Inequality). The two however not only complement, but require one another, intellectual reason develops conscience, and conscience then guides intellectual reason. Conscience without intellectual reason would be the blind love of good, while intellectual reason alone, without the perfecting sentiment of conscience, would be knowledge of the good detached from action and in imminent danger of hubris and error. He goes on further in the discussion of compassion and virtue: Amour de soi-mï¿½me is a natural feeling which leads every animal to look to its own preservation, and which, guided in man by reason and modified by compassion, creates humanity and virtue. Humans not only are unique in developing this, but also in the ability to survive. Health Care has advanced in many ways to even fend off diseases bred in nature, and have allowed humans to thrive as such since we are able to prolong life spans of not only humans, but those in nature as well, i.e. Animal Shelters. Another primary difference Rousseau points out is the ability for man to act freely whereas animals are driven by instinct primarily. Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality: I see nothing in any animal but an ingenious machine, to which nature hath given senses to wind itself up, and to guard itself, to a certain degree, against anything that might tend to disorder or destroy it. I perceive exactly the same things in the human machine, with this difference that in the operations of the brute, nature is the sole agent, whereas man has some share in his own operations, in his character as a free agent. An example of this is a deer will feed in a particular area of the woods however he continues to do such even during hunting season, thus only being able to "guard" itself to a certain extent i.e. scattering when the shot is heard, however while not being able to perceive potentially detrimental behavior of simply feeding in that area in the first place. Thus since humans have developed ways to not only to prolong the lives of their own species through technological and healthcare advancements, they've also created ways in which to protect animals, as well as developed such unique traits as reason, conscience, virtue, and compassion, and being able to stop detrimental behavior as other animals may not. Humans have infrastructures, world economies, and culture etc. Thus our status is merited and we are achieving a Philosophical Jus