March Beginners Tournament: Animal Rights

First off, I am very excited to be participating in this tourney - Thanks Bsh! My opponent has put forth a solid argument – Well said, tejretics. Let us get to it. Ethical Rights A rights based ethics system by which individuals have inalienable rights is generally based on the fact that these individuals are human. I find bestowing rights simply based on species is somewhat old fashioned, and I have agreed to this debate so that terjetics and I may explore new criterion by which rights should be granted. My opponent wishes to expand these rights to invertebrate sentient animals, but I find his line of demarcation to be problematic. If we are to amend rights then we must have criterion by which all individuals who currently have rights will not lose them. We will be worse off, if we subscribe to a system by which we grant rights to animals, and some humans lose them by the same criterion. For instance, it could be argued a comatose patient is no longer sentient, and thus forfeits their rights. Pro has also argued the ability to suffer should be considered in determining rights, but let us consider humans afflicted with Congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis (CIPA). “(CIPA) has two characteristic features: the inability to feel pain and temperature, and decreased or absent sweating (anhidrosis)” [1]. People with CIPA are incapable of needless suffering (as defined) but they still have rights, nonetheless. Lastly, as Pro has advocated for all sentient vertebrate animals, this would mean that animals which are known to be disease vectors (like rats), nuisance animals known to destroy properties (like wild pigs), and animals known to attack humans (coyotes, bears, wolves) should not be killed when encountered and put the local human population at risk. Basically, we run into the same problem as before where we sacrifice human rights for the sake of animals. Hunting Pro argues hunting can be “directly discounted as it is for the sole purpose of sadistic human entertainment”. I submit Pro is not familiar with reasons for hunting. Entertainment is but one possibility. Animals may also be hunted for the purposes of population control. Without this culling, negative incidence between wild animals and humans would happen much more regularly. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you, humans benefit from these population reductions. In addition to this, hunters generally dispatch the animal as efficiently and painlessly as possible. Suffering is possible, but it is not the intent. There are reasons for hunting which are not needless nor do they cause suffering by default. Vegetarian Alternatives I am willing to concede a vegetarian diet can be nutritionally adequate, although individuals of modest means will be quick to point out the difference between the cost of a vegetarian diet and one with meat. Many times, a vegetarian diet can be cost prohibitive for larger low income families. In addition to this, if everyone person suddenly changed to a vegetarian diet we do not have the infrastructure to support more than 7 billion people without meat. As a final point, being vegetarian means eating no red meat - vegetarians can still eat eggs, milk, and depending on the vegetarian they may eat chicken or fish (see grpahic below).Vegetarians may still be exploiting animals. In order for Pro's argument to be coherent, he must go beyond a vegetarian diet and advocate a vegan diet which is more restrictive and expensive by comparison. Overall, killing animals for meat is not needless, and like hunting, there is no intent to cause suffering in the process. Pre-clinical trials Current treatments for multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, strokes, schizophrenia, depression, anxiety disorders, PTSD, not to mention penicillin, the polio vaccine, and insulin (and many others) would never have come about without animals. [2][3]. Mice were used to test the effectiveness of penicillin and without them an estimated 200 million lives would have been lost. [4] No one wants to see animals suffer, but there is simply no analog for a living body. Without animal testing countless humans would die, especially considering the constant threat from incurable infectious diseases and the ease by which curable diseases can mutate to once again become incurable. This is a case where political correctness can drastically and negatively affect us all. Teddy Roosevelt once said,”Common sense without conscience may lead to crime, but conscience without common sense may lead to folly, which is the handmaiden of crime.” Decisions should be made conscientiously and with common sense. Rationality and Differentiation Pro suggests humans without the ability to think rationally currently have rights, thus animals should have the same rights. On first blush this seems reasonable, but we do not bestow rights upon infants and the handicap because of their inability to think rationally but rather their potential for it. They have/had the potential to develop rational brains, whereas most animals will never develop this ability. Also, in this argument Pro is basically arguing for all sentient beings, so the arbitrary line in the sand eliminating organisms which do not have a backbone is curious. It seems as if Pro is playing favorites. Utilitarianism I find it odd that Pro pushes a utilitarian viewpoint. As mentioned earlier, the investment of a few mice more than makes up for the happiness and lack of suffering 200 million ‘non-deaths’ generated as a consequence of penicillin. For the sake of the argument, let's say I do agree mice have rights and they were killed in the discovery of penicillin, according to utilitarianism this is a morally justifiable action. The consequences include 200 million beings who did not die, and (assuming each person was spectacularly unpopular and only knew 2 people) 400 million friends and family not suffering the loss of a loved one as a result. By these modest calculations, 600,000,000 lives were affected positively by the sacrifice of ~ 60-100 mice. Plus, as mentioned above, the ability to think rationally as a criterion for rights eliminates most animals. Back to you, Pro. [1] http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... [2] http://www.brainfacts.org... [3] http://speakingofresearch.com... [4] http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...