Justice requires the recognition of animal rights

Burden of ProofAnimal Rights: the idea that the most basic interests of animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings. Animals should no longer be regarded as property, or used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment, but should instead be viewed as legal persons and members of the moral community -- from WikipediaAs such, Pro has the burden to show a just society must provide animals legal access to similar rights as humans. To show animals deserve moral consideration does not meet this burden. Pro must prove animals deserve not only moral consideration but legal rights on par with those given to humans.Re: Pro's CasePro's overarching argument boils down to the following claims:1. "We must respect the capabilities of each individual."2. "All capabilities are equal and trade off with one another."3. "Animals have capabilities that justice must allow to flourish"4. Denying animal rights is discriminatory and leads to more "exclusion like racism or sexism."(1) alone is not enough to grant animals access to legal rights. When (1) is coupled with (2), however, Pro provides the (hypothetical) framework for arguing (3) and (4). It is clear, then, that Pro's entire argument depends on the soundness of (2). I argue (2) is false: it jumps from the conclusion that capabilities deserve moral consideration, the conclusion of (1), to the conclusion of (2) that all capabilities deserve "equal" moral consideration. The jump in logic is unsubstantiated and unsupportable. If we were to compare the moral worth of a dog's life to a human's life, it goes against all our moral intuitions to say a dog's life is morally equivalent to the life of a human being. Hence, (2) cannot be correct, and therefore, neither can Pro's argument for (3) or (4).For example, take (3): Pro argues that, because animals are "sentient and conscious" of what happens to them, they deserve moral consideration. Because animals feel pleasure and pain like humans, animals deserve "moral attention." But Pro admits (2) cannot be true when Pro, along with Martha Nussbaum, acknowledges that (3) does not prohibit the killing or use of animals for furthering human goals. Pro implicitly denies the plausibility of (2) by granting humans greater moral value than animals. Hence, while (3) may provide a basis for giving animals moral attention, it does not provide a basis for granting animals legal rights.Pro's (4) presents Peter Singer's well-known argument against speciesism. But because (4) depends on (2), Singer's argument is false. Singer argues, if animals deserve moral consideration, it must be equal to the moral consideration given to humans. But suppose a dog was attacking a human infant and the only way to prevent this was inflicting severe pain on the dog—more pain, in fact, than the bite would inﬂict on the infant. Pro, along with Singer, would have to say: let the dog bite. As Richard Posner explains, "Singer's position is that if an animal feels pain, the pain matters as much as it does when a human being feels pain, provided the pain is as great; and it matters more if it is greater." [1] But any moral person (not only the infant's parents) would question sparing the dog, even though doing so would minimize the sum of pain in the world.The superior moral consideration we grant the human infant than the dog is a moral intuition deeper than any reason that could be given for it and impervious to any reason that anyone could give against it. Hence, although race and gender have been proven morally irrelevant categories, membership in the human species, as opposed to other species, is a morally relevant fact.At this point, I want to return to a discussion of (1). (1) is a claim that is possibly more dubious and dangerous than (2). For example, if the "capability" of being "sentient and conscious" were enough to grant moral consideration, as Pro argues it is, why are computers categorically excluded from moral consideration? Many scientists and philosophers believe computers will soon achieve consciousness, and no one disputes that computers have already developed particular cognitive capacities that exceed the cognitive capacity of animals and humans. But most of us would think it downright wrong to give rights or moral consideration to computers. The claim that sentience or cognitive capacity deserves moral consideration is clearly suspect, as is Pro's subsequent claim that moral consideration of all capabilities is equal. Hence, Pro's framework, including both (1) and (2), is clearly false. And therefore, Pro's (3) and (4) are also false.Property StatusJustice cannot require the recognition of animal rights because justice requires animals be treated as objects of human ownership. Why? Because the survival and advancement of human civilization depended on the domestication and use of animals. As University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein insists, "There would be nothing left of human society if we treated animals not as property but as independent holders of rights." [2]Jared Diamond argues there are "many ways in which big domestic animals were crucial to those human societies possessing them. Most notably, they provided meat, milk products, fertilizer, land transport, leather, military assault vehicles, plow traction, and wool, as well as germs that killed previously unexposed people." Smaller animals, such as birds, were likewise domesticated for their "meat, egg[s] and feathers." [3]Today, the blood of a slaughtered cow is used to manufacture plywood adhesives, fertilizer, fire extinguisher foam, and dyes. The cow's fat helps make plastic, tires, crayons, cosmetics, lubricants, soaps, detergents, cough syrup, contraceptive jellies and creams, ink, shaving cream, fabric softeners, synthetic rubber, jet engine lubricants, textiles, corrosion inhibitors, and metalmachining lubricants. Her collagen is found in pie crusts, yogurts, matches, bank notes, paper, and cardboard glue, her intestines used in strings for musical instruments and racquets, her bones in charcoal ash for refining sugar, in ceramics, and in cleaning and polishing compounds.Today, we are all complicit in human ownership of animals. Animals are assets with positive economic value, and as such are important objects of a system of property law. Animals were pivotal to the survival of past human societies, and their central role in human survival continues even today.Benefits to Animals from Ownership by HumansHuman ownership of animals has worked to the advantage of animals and not to their detriment. Left in their natural state, life in the wild leaves animals exposed to the elements, to attacks by other animals, to the inability to ﬁnd food or shelter, to accidental injury, and to disease. Human owners, on the other hand, spend large quantites of resources to ensure the protection of animals (their property). Humans often provide animals with food and shelter that said animals would not otherwise have found. As for injury and disease, veterinary medicine may not be at the level of human medicine, but it is not far behind. When it comes to medical care, it’s better to be a sick cat in a middle-class U.S. household than a sick peasant in a Third World country. Even death from human ownership is more humane than in nature. Slaughter that spares cattle unnecessary anxiety and suffering tends to improve the amount and quality of the meat that is left behind. Hence, it is in human interests economically and morally to provide a more humane death than death in the wild.ConclusionPro argues for animal rights. By way of response, I attacked Pro's framework by unpacking its inherent absurdity and incompatibility with our deepest moral intuitions. I concluded by arguing animals should be considered human property. Sources[1] Sunstein, Cass and Nussbaum, Martha. Animal Debates: Current Debates and New Directions[2] http://tinyurl.com...;[3] Diamon, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel