My 150th Debate: Animal Rights

Thanks to FT for the debate! I'll present my case.JUSTICEJustice has been defined as "giving each their due." How then do we determine who is due what? To answer this question, let's consider the following examples: suppose that I am in a race, and I used performance-enhancing drugs in order to secure my victory. Was my victory just? No, because it was unfairly acquired; I garnered an unfair advantage in order to outdo my competitors. Similarly, if I promise a friend that I will help them with a project if they proof read my essay, it would be unfair of me to renege on my end of the bargain if my friend upholds their end. It would be unfair to take without giving what was promised; it would be unjustly one-sided. These examples serve to demonstrate the importance of fairness in determining what we are due. Fairness indicates that I am not due the win, and that my friend is due my help with their project. Fairness should thus be our metric here in determining who is due what.ARGUMENTSC1. Needless SufferingFairness in Application of RightsPerhaps the most fundamental due we ascribe to beings is the right to be free from needless or wanton suffering. In fact, one of the primary purposes of rights is to shield agents against needless suffering. Consider that all rights are in some way designed to insulate people from being the victims of such suffering. The rights to property, freedom, bodily integrity, healthcare, and so forth are all in some way preventing suffering. A person denied the ability to own property, arbitrarily confined, physically violated, and prevented from having their illnesses addressed is a person who is suffering.The human rights discourse itself seems to be a response to suffering. The crimes of WWII, which lead to the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), such as the torture of POWs, the oppression of millions, and, most notably, the Holocaust, were all crimes that inflicted untold suffering on human beings, and demanded that the international community respond to protect individuals against that kind of treatment. Given this, it seems that one of the purposes we accord rights is to prevent needless suffering. If we buy that this is true, then any agent that can experience needless suffering deserves rights protecting them from it. If our goal is to protect groups from needless suffering, and groups H and A can suffer needlessly, it would be unfairly prejudiced to protect group H but not A, and it would be counterproductive to our overall goal. Thus, if animals can needlessly suffer, we should accord them rights.Animals Can SufferAnimals are certainly able to feel physical pain. "Every particle of factual evidence supports the contention that the higher mammalian vertebrates experience pain sensations at least as acute as our own...their nervous systems are almost identical to ours and their reactions to pain remarkably similar." [12]At least some animals are capable of mental suffering. Take elephants for example. Their advanced emotional capacities mean that they are definitely capable of suffering: "Studies show that structures in the elephant brain are strikingly similar to those in humans. MRI scans of an elephant's brain suggest a large hippocampus, the component in the mammalian brain linked to memory and an important part of its limbic system, which is involved in processing emotions. The elephant brain has also been shown to possess an abundance of the specialized neurons known as spindle cells, which are thought to be associated with self-awareness, empathy, and social awareness in humans. Elephants have even passed the mirror test of self-recognition, something only humans, and some great apes and dolphins, had been known to do." [1] Elephants that have witnessed or been subject to violence also show signs of PTSD. "'A large body of research shows that the neurobiological mechanisms of attachment are found in many mammals, including humans and elephants...The emotional relationship between the mother...offspring impacts the wiring of the infants' developing brain.'" [1, 2] Elephants are also known to mourn those they lost, showing negative emotions (e.g. regret) at the absence of the lost others. [3] PTSD-like symptoms have also been observed in dogs. [4] "Dr. Walter Burghardt...has classified the cluster of symptoms he has seen in these animals as a form of canine post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)...[M]any behaviors seem to be somewhat analogous to those of the human counterpart, such as signs of hyper-vigilance, changes in temperament, and/or unusual, agitated reactions to once-tolerated noises or sights...Correspondingly, the desensitization counterconditioning and medication treatments that are seemingly helpful for serious canine cases arguably pull from desensitization/cognitive therapies and pharmacological interventions that have been effective for human veterans with PTSD." [5]Generically, research suggests that "all vertebrates appear to have some capacity for primal affective feelings." [6] All mammals have universal survival circuits as well. These circuits are closely related to emotions, strongly implying that some similarities in emotions carry across the board. [7] There is even evidence many that mammals have conscious experiences. [8] "Based on a range of scientific studies...we know that emotional harm actually hurts more than physical harm, and that animals will 'choose' physical suffering over emotional suffering, if forced to pick." [13] Given the above data, it seems like animals can experience not just physical suffering, but also psychological and emotional suffering.C2. The LawThe Law as a DueIf we refer back to the example of me promising to trade my friend for services, we can see that promises and fairness have a close relationship. Promises generally ought to be fulfilled (unless they promise to do something clearly immoral), and they enjoin the person making the promise to carry out the promised actions. It would be unfair to not fulfill a promise because to allow people to break promises would be to allow deception and fraud, and it would also be to allow people to evade obligations that they otherwise should have carried out. It allows people to unfairly relieve themselves of their responsibilities.The law is a kind of promise. It promises us that when someone breaks a rule, they will be punished, and that the rules will be enforced to create an understood playing field. When the law is not enforced, it breaches a promise, and is thus not just. Thus, if animals are promised rights under the law, they are due those rights under the fairness standard.Animal's have Legal Rights"Children and idiots start legal proceedings, not on their own direct initiative, but rather through the actions of proxies or attorneys who are empowered to speak in their names. If there is no conceptual absurdity in this situation, why should there be in the case where a proxy makes a claim on behalf of an animal? People commonly enough make wills leaving money to trustees for the care of animals. Is it not natural to speak of the animal's right to his inheritance in cases of this kind? If a trustee embezzles money from the animal's account, and a proxy speaking in the dumb brute's behalf presses the animal's claim, can he not be described as asserting the animal's rights'? More exactly, the animal itself claims its rights through the vicarious actions of a human proxy speaking in its name and in its behalf." [9] We could also cite the example of laws protecting animals from abuse or endangered animals from being hunted. They're all legal promises that are rights of the animals'.C3. Argument from Marginal CasesAll Humans, But...All humans have rights, or (at the very least), people of all different kinds have rights. We only need to look at international law to see the truth of this statement. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states unequivocally: "Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life." [10] Why is it the case that we can give "every human being" a right or rights, but not animals? There must be some morally relevant reason, otherwise it is merely unjustified prejudice (speciesism) to give humans rights but not animals, and to treat humans a particular way, but not animals. No Relevant DifferencesWe can look to the examples of babies and of the profoundly mentally handicapped (including severe Alzheimer's, brain injuries, etc.) with which to make this case. Humanity accords to both of these groups certain rights against maltreatment and abuse, yet they are incapable of reasoning, higher-order emotions, self-actualization/goal-setting, and rationally engaging with the moral community.If these classes of people have rights, then why not animals? All three groups (animals, the mentally handicapped, and infants) share a dearth of those qualities usually used to differentiate humans and animals. In fact, some animals might be more capable of rational thought, emotions, goal-setting, etc., than those groups of people, seemingly making them more qualified for rights than many humans--the case of Chimpanzees being a notable example. [11]UNDERVIEWPresume Pro because it's more egregiously unjust to deny rights where they were due than to award rights where they weren't. Denying a due violates justice, but extra benefits do not necessarily do this.SOURCES1 - http://tinyurl.com...2 - http://tinyurl.com...3 - http://tinyurl.com...4 - http://tinyurl.com...5 - http://tinyurl.com...6 - http://tinyurl.com...7 - http://tinyurl.com...8 - http://tinyurl.com...9 - http://tinyurl.com...10 - http://tinyurl.com...11 - http://tinyurl.com...12 - http://tinyurl.com...13 - http://tinyurl.com...