Animal Rights

Thanks to my opponent for this debate. First, I would like to note that, absent a reason to believe that animal rights exist, there is reason to believe that they do not exist. For example, if I offer the proposition, “There is a barbershop underneath Antarctica”, absent a reason to believe it, there is reason to disbelieve it. This is not about BoP (though I am hitting myself for not contesting that); rather, this is the argument that “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” With that out of the way, here are my premises: 1. Either human rights exist or do not exist. 2. Human rights entail individual liberty. 3. If one human deprives another of liberty, through slavery, murder, or otherwise, he infringes upon his human rights. 4. Existence of human rights necessitates abstention from infringing upon the rights of other humans. 5. Humans must kill to eat--either plants, or animals. 6. Both plants and animals are living. 7. If living is what entitles an entity to rights, then both plants and animals have the same rights as humans 8. Therefore, humans cannot eat plants and animals. 9. Humans eat. 10. Either rights do not exist, and therefore we may eat, or they do exist, and therefore plants and animals do not have rights. 11. Given the rules of this debate, rights exist. 12. Either only animals+plants have rights, only humans have rights, or both have rights. 13. Humans are a specific subset of animals 14. If animals have rights, humans must have rights by definition of an animal. 15. Therefore, rights cannot belong exclusively to animals (it is irrelevant whether only plants have rights). 16. Either only humans have rights, or both humans and plants+animals have rights. 17. If they have rights, plants/animals would be infringing upon human rights if they did not allow humans to eat them. 18. If either plants or animals have rights, eating them infringes upon their rights. 19. Therefore, humans and plants/animals would be in a constant state of violation of rights 20. If rights cannot possibly be respected, then they do not exist. 21. Since rights exist, they must be respectable 22. Therefore, plants and animals must not have rights. I shall spend the rest of my round elaborating on these premises. 1. Something cannot both exist and not exist. 2. By the OP, “something that one may properly claim as their due/a moral or legal entitlement to, or to not perform or have others perform certain action(s) and to or to not be in certain states.” This is vague, so adding in the “commonplace understanding” of human rights is necessary. According to the United Nations, who, given the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are the common authority on human rights, “All human rights are indivisible, whether they are civil and political rights, such as the right to life, equality before the law and freedom of expression; economic, social and cultural rights, such as the rights to work, social security and education, or collective rights, such as the rights to development and self-determination, are indivisible, interrelated and interdependent,” (1). 3. This is by definition. 4. Follows from the definition 5. Self-evident. 6. Self-evident. 7. If both humans and plants/animals have rights, there must be a common thread that makes them all fit the same grouping. Status as a living being is the most frequently stated and least nonsensical that I have heard, so I have opted for it. 8. Follows from 2 and 7. 9. Self-evident. 10. If living beings have rights, we may not infringe upon them by eating them. If we don’t, we may eat them. 11. From the OP. 12. Self-evident. 13. By biological definition, not the definition of animal otherwise used in this debate; this is necessary to distinguish because I am speaking of animal in a broader sense here. 14. By definition 15. If animals have rights, humans must have rights, too. 16. By 15, I showed that humans must have rights no matter what. 17. By definition. 18. By definition. 19. Humans eat => violates animal+plant rights. Animals+plants let humans die => violates human rights. This can also be extended to plants vs. animals. Animals eat => violates plant rights. Plants let animals die => violates animal rights. That plants cannot consent is irrelevant--the animals cannot either. 20. Because rights are universal, they are also something that people have. Here, we see that the right to not be eaten cannot be had. 21. Follows from 11 and 20. 22. Because by 19, animal+plant rights are not respectable. Sources: 1. http://www.ohchr.org...