Animal Rights

I thank Con for their arguments. Ob1: In Note 1, it is clearly mentioned that “one animal’s rights are accorded equal consideration to one human’s rights”, i.e. an animal can sacrifice its rights for the rights of many humans, and a human can sacrifice their rights for the rights of many animals. Therefore, via. the rules themselves, “The idea that one animal's life can be sacrificed for many goes against the definitions. The definition specifics justice requires giving ‘each’ their due. Each person would need to be given their right to life under that definition, so therefore one life cannot be sacrificed for the greater good” is an incorrect observation. Ob2: From Note 1, we can demonstrate thus - if I can show that animals have any rights at all, even just one, and I can show that these rights are required by justice, then I win the debate. Ob3: Con’s arguments on humans incapable of being immoral while many animal actions are immoral is flawed as it depends on a very specific definition of “morality” to be valid. For humans, immorality is not following the ethical or social values ascribed to them by human community, but for animals, as they cannot think with the logical complexity of humans, it is the ethical values ascribed to them by personal instinct, or, in cases of social animals, social community of that specific animal. As seen in the previous round, as humans have the psychological capability to violate their instinct, moral values ascribed to them will be different, as will moral entitlements. But humans must extend their values to all regardless of species as must animals, else it is an unjust community. As animals’ values are determined by instinct, it is impossible for them to break those ethical constructs. Humans violate human ethical constructs by limiting these ethical constructs to solely human species. R1) Animal Testing First, expanded research on microdosing, in vitro methods, and synthetic organs will limit animal testing to the bare minimum, following which there will be no need to cause testing that is extremely harmful or to the point where it cannot be regulated to ensure humane treatment of animals. Con drops the humane treatment argument completely. Second, I apply Observation 1 and Note 1 to show that my classification of one animal being sacrificed to save many lives, or one human being sacrificed to save many lives, still stands as an argument. I extend it to this round. R2) Veganism RIIA. Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids “… vegans can obtain DHA from microalgae supplements containing DHA, as well as from foods fortified with DHA. However, EPA can be obtained from the retroconversion of DHA in the body.” [1. http://tinyurl.com...] While DHA supplements, if taken without caution, may result in cardiovascular risk due to rise in total cholesterol, they can be taken in appropriate quantities to halt the same. According to findings published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the conversion of plant-based Omega-3 ALA to the long-chain EPA and DHA may be increased in non-fish eaters. [2. http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com...] Therefore, in people who do not eat fish, the circulatory system becomes adapted to increase conversion of ALA to EPA and DHA. As cited in the previous round, kiwifruit and flaxseed oil contain major amounts of ALA. Therefore, on balance, a vegan diet allows for good amounts of Omega-3 PUFAs. RIIB. Vitamin B12 First, it is the regulation system here that is flawed. For this “just” society to be just by definition, it must cater to animal rights. As supplements are available, the regulation of supplements must also be strict for it to be classified as a just society. Con is arguing for a resolution “Animals Should Have Rights”, whereas this debate refers to justice requiring the recognition of animal rights. Therefore, as the resolution refers to a correction in society from the status quo of there not being complete recognition of animal rights, the status quo must change. If B12 supplements were not available, then it would be subject to debate, but if there is a minor correction in the regulation system, then it fits with the resolution itself. Secondly, as we speak of the United States’ regulation, I would like to note that fortified foods are available for all. [3. http://www.veganhealth.org...] I would like to note that the source used by Pro to state that fortified foods are not available to all states nothing of the sort. R3) Morality First, Pro misunderstands the concept of immorality. Pro states that animals commit “immoral” acts but these acts are not the animal’s fault. If the animal commits an act but it is not the animal’s fault, then the act does not qualify as an immoral act by definition. The point here is that favoritism for humans is equally unfair. Fairness is defined as “treating people equally without discrimination.” [4. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...] If animals cannot reason, then they cannot commit immoral actions, as the very ability to judge between morality and immorality lies with high intellectual capability. The ecological “balance” cited by me merely refers to the maintenance of species in an ecosystem. Scientists do agree that without animal predators, both predators and prey would be in danger. The same does not apply to humans. [5. Stearns, Beverly Peterson; Stearns, S. C.; Stearns, Stephen C. (2000). Watching, from the Edge of Extinction. Yale University Press. p. 1921. ISBN 978-0-300-08469-6.] “They don't meet the standards, which have to be consistent to be fair.” The supposed “immorality” of animals is a result of the need for the adaptive survival of the individual and the species as a whole. Animals cannot reason, hence they do not have the ability to process purely human ideals of morality. Therefore, the rights of animals are not forfeited. Fairness’ definition, given above, entails that all just decisions must be free of prejudice. Prejudice against animals (i.e. treating humans above animals) is a form of discrimination, as it favors a species over another. This is referred to as speciesism. [6. Singer, Peter (1975). Animal Liberation. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06171-130-5.] The animals given “healthy” lives in farms are bred for slaughter. If this is a sign of “give and take”, then giving birth is doing a favor to the newborn child, which is absurd. The lion gains food necessary for its survival, and is engineered by instinct. If humans lived primitive lives, et cetera, then it is justified by the definition of one life equals another, and the instinctive need for survival. In this case, the animal and the human are truly equal. Present-day primitive communities must be rehabilitated for the very purpose of justice. Con constantly disregards the resolution, that justice requires the recognition of animal rights. The resolution virtually says that animals and humans must be treated without discrimination. To defend animal rights, I do not need to demonstrate various moral entitlements of animals; as seen in Ob3, I must defend one right. I have defended the right against needless suffering on an equal basis to humans. These: “P1- Moral rights should be ascribed to all human beings equally, viz. infants and the mentally handicapped have equal moral and ethical rights as able-thinking adults. P2-Animals are not human beings. C-Therefore, moral rights should not be ascribed to animals” are flawed as it is not just human beings who deserve moral rights by the non-discriminative principle of justice and fairness by semantic definition. Conclusion I have defended one necessary right that must be ascribed to animals and have challenged societal definitions of morality being applied to animals. Via. my observations, I have fulfilled my Burden of Proof entirely to show that, regardless of utilitarian terms of rationality, the ethical obligations to animals must be fulfilled. Therefore, justice requires the recognition of animal rights. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro. Humans violate morality by inflicting needless suffering (e.g. hunting) against animals and other humans. Therefore, in a fair community, my resolution remains affirmed. VOTE PRO! Con must waive Round 4.