Animal Rights

C1: There's no need to respond to other methods, because I've already showed the FDA saying that animal testing is sometimes required and Pro still doesn't deny the fact that sometimes inhumane animal testing is necessary. In fact, it is illegal to do animal testing when alternatives exist, yet it is still necessary. (1) The reason is, is that the bodies are too complex to ever be recreated in detail artificially. (1) Perhaps one day, but the fact is animal testing is still sometimes necessary. (1) Of course, testing on animals is not 100% accurate, but neither is in-vitro testing. If it is not tested on animals than the first test it will undergo on a living body will be on humans. This could potentially be lethal and threaten human's right to life. 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. C2: If only one essential nutrient is inaccessible in a vegan diet, then it is not giving humans their due. First of all, Pro cites that vitamin B-12 can be gained from fortified foods and supplement. However, fortified foods are not available to everyone. (2) That leaves supplements, which many vegans also use for vitamin D, iodine, calcium, and iron. (3) However, in the United States and other countries supplements are not always well regulated, like food would be. For example in the US, supplement companies don't need to prove a supplement to effective, inform of side effects, can get away with inaccurate labeling, and were so badly unregulated they often contained contaminants. (4) I've already proved without rebuttal that omega-3 supplements can be dangerous. Also, I did address the fact that ALA can be converted to EPA and DHA. However, I also showed a study showing it was very inefficient way to attain these, especially for DHA. Another study showed vegans were severely lacking in DHA and it could only be solved by taking DHA supplements (which were found to be as mentioned earlier dangerous) or adding a potentially dangerous amount of ALA. (5) Pro also dropped my argument that hunting is still a necessity for certain people. Pro also dropped my most important argument in this contention regarding deaths caused by a vegan diet. I'll go over the deaths caused by farming again (although Pro also dropped my arguments about fertilizers). (6) With more demand for farmed products to replace animals native vegetation would need to be clear-felled, which results in many animals losing their habitats and dying. (6) Also, processes such as ploughing and harvesting kill small animals, lizards, snakes, and mice. (6) In fact, 100 mice are killed per hectare each year. (6) C3/R1: Obviously it's not an animal's fault for committing immoral acts, but they can't be held to different standards than humans. By creating a double standard for animals, it is using favoritism towards animals, and therefore is unfair. Pro says that in a fair community all moral entitlements and dues must be recognized. I agree. However, animals are not due anything. They don't meet the standards, which have to be consistent to be fair (regardless of whether they can or not). In fact, Pro has already mentioned mentally handicapped people may have equal understanding of rights and morals as animals, yet they are still held to the same standards. If they commit an immoral act, they lose their rights (as agreed upon, since they're human), even if they are acting out of instinct much like an animal would. Humans are biologically animals as well, so therefore without intellect it is expected they will follow instinct as well. Therefore, if all humans (even those with the rationality of an animal) are held to the same standards to receive their rights a just society would require animals follow the same standards. Pro suggests that animals are programmed to help keep ecological balance. However, that's not true. First of all, an ecological balance does not exist and is widely disregarded by the scientific community. The world is actually chaotic and there are natural disturbances that disrupt any possibly at a balance. (7) However, animal instincts are passed down through genes, and exist to help them survive and reproduce. (8) Except, animals are not doing it to meet any responsibilities, except to themselves. I already mentioned this earlier in the debate, but a male lion who wants to join a pride will kill all the existing cubs. This obviously does not help the species survive, but it gives him a chance to reproduce with the women of the pride. Also, Pro asserts that human instincts go against ecological balance. He's correct, they do, but for the same reason animals do. Like mentioned earlier humans are biologically animals, so they have instincts, including the urge to reproduce (like all sexually reproducing animals). (9) Therefore, humans have animal instincts, yet they have to control them to have their rights and in a fair society so will animals. R2: Pro does not address my example of certain farms giving animals healthy lives away from a place they'd otherwise most likely die in, but killing them when they're old for meat. In other words, we give them a relatively long healthy life and take meat for food. However, animals also do this in nature. If a lion kills zebra, the zebra loses its life, yet the lion gains food. Since I already showed that animals need to be held to the same standards to receive rights for it to be just, the lion should not receive rights. R3: Pro does a good job rebutting my rebuttal (which was poorly argued). However, his claim still doesn't hold any weight as I'll explain why here. The first premise is a false one. I can easily change it to: 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 ^This uses the exact same logic as Pro's original argument. If not A than B. This is a false dichotomy, as it could have just as easily been laid out the way I did or even said to all people born with eyes, etc. (10) Empathy actually doesn't have much to do with morals. It has to do with mirror neurons in the brain which "fire" based on what you see, it's as if you are experiencing it from the other person's point of view. This is also why you may flinch when you see someone else in pain. (11) So, realistically empathy can apply to almost anything. For example, people were found to have empathy towards robots, which are inanimate. (12) Conclusion: To conclude, justice does not require animal rights. One reason is because not allowing animal testing when necessary does not give humans their due, at a chance at better health, for their right to life. Another reason is that a vegan diet does not provide every nutrient in a healthy matter, which is not giving humans their due at a healthy lifestyle and it is impossible to even have a diet without having some animals die, so therefore humans are not given their due at life, via food. Some humans also rely on hunting to survive and if that was to be taken away, those humans are not being given their due. Also, animals are not due anything if justice is fair and equal (which it is by definition), because humans (even those with the intelligence of animals) cannot commit immoral acts, while having the same instincts of animals, yet animals will always violate these rights and therefore, under a fair system, animals do not deserve rights. This also helps justify the animal testing and eating meat products, as no one with rights are being violated. 1-http://speakingofresearch.com... 2-http://ajcn.nutrition.org... 3-http://www.theveganrd.com... 4-http://www.doctoroz.com... 5-http://www.veganhealth.org... 6-http://theconversation.com... 7-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 8-http://a-z-animals.com... 9-http://www.zo.utexas.edu... 10-http://rationalwiki.org... 11-https://www.youtube.com... 12-http://www.smithsonianmag.com...