My 150th Debate: Animal Rights

BurdensPro's arguing for a massive shift in the way we view animals, so the burden of proof should be on Pro. Animals have always been viewed as property. They've been used for meat, milk, fertilizer, land transport, leather, military assault vehicles, plow traction, wool, feathers, plywood adhesives, fire extinguisher foam, plastic, tires, crayons, cosmetics, lubricants, soaps, detergents, cough syrup, contraceptive jellies, ink, shaving cream, fabric softeners, textiles, synthetic rubber, strings for musical instruments, and so on. Indeed, Professor Epstein says there'd be “nothing left of human society if we treated animals not as property but as independent holders of rights.” [1] Recognizing animal rights would impose unprecedented limits on the range of permissible human action. It also creates an inherently unfair asymmetry: animals can't reason morally, can't justify their actions, can't be held responsible for their actions, can't be sued or put in jail, can't enter contracts, and can't honor human rights.Since this is a huge change, and since it imposes unprecedented restrictions on human freedoms, and since animals lack the self-reflective ability to know the difference either way, the burden of proof is on Pro. And if your judging paradigm requires shared burdens, then at least presume that animals don't have rights as a default position. Remember, we don't recognize rights to protect ourselves from animals; we recognize rights to protect ourselves from other humans. So there needs to be a presumption against extending rights to animals.RightsWhether justice requires extending rights to animals depends on why humans have rights in the first place. I propose the following frameworks:(1) Michael Perry's argument that religion is the only viable ground for universal human rights in our postmodern world. Since rationality alone cannot justify absolute, universal truths or values, the only way to justify universal human rights is through faith in God. In this view, God gave humans certain rights, including dominion over animals. [2] Under this framework, animals clearly don't have rights.(2) John Rawls' contractarian theory of justice, which holds that rights derive from a social contract between reasonable individuals (e.g. principles chosen in the original position). In this view, rights don't depend on any particular religious, philosophical, or metaphysical doctrines. Instead, reasonable individuals agree to basic rights that give them the most control over their lives. [3](3) Rainer Forst's constructivist theory of justice, which says that human rights are grounded on the status of humans as justificatory beings. Forst explains that humans not only have a unique capacity for language, but also the ability to take responsibility for their actions by giving reasons to others and expecting that others do the same. At bottom, this view posits a single fundamental right – the right to justification – and this right requires that those who affect you in morally relevant ways justify their actions to you reciprocally and generally. This right to justification thus lends every moral person an accompanying veto-right against actions that can't be justified.Forst contends that "human rights are weapons in combating certain evils that human beings inflict upon one another; they emphasize standards of treatment that no human being could justifiably deny to others and that should be secured in a legitimate social order." Forst continues: "If human rights ensure that no human being is treated in a way that could not be justified to him or her as a person equal to others, then this implies – reflexively speaking – that one claim underlies all human rights, namely human beings' claim to be respected as autonomous agents who have the right not to be subjected to certain actions or institutional norms that cannot be adequately justified to them." [4]These frameworks justify human rights. But neither justifies extending rights to animals. Animals can't enter contracts, so Rawls argued that animals are beyond the scope of justice. Besides, individuals in the original position have no reason to agree to limit their rights or freedoms by recognizing animal rights. Animals also lack the ability to justify their actions, to demand justifications, or to understand justifications given by others. As such, animals are not morally considerable beings. So Forst also excludes animals from having rights.[Note: Each of these frameworks negates the resolution independently. Thus, Pro must show that all three frameworks are flawed. Showing that only one is flawed isn't enough. And Pro also must show that there's a better framework that justifies both human rights and animal rights.]UtilitarianismSome philosophers have argued that utilitarianism provides a justification for human rights as instrumental goods that produce the greatest aggregate utility. However, that argument undermines human rights, because it defines rights as instrumental rather than intrinsic goods. In effect, the resulting rights aren't actually rights, since they'll need to be violated whenever maximum utility requires it. Utilitarianism thus creates a rights system that would dole out or take away rights on a case-by-case basis, which technically isn't a rights system at all.That said, even if a utilitarian calculus isn't necessary or sufficient to justify rights, utilitarian concerns are nonetheless relevant to justice and how far we extend rights. So if the costs of recognizing animal rights outweigh the benefits, it creates a strong presumption against extending human rights to animals. After all, if the costs outweigh, it suggests that limiting rights to humans creates a better (and therefore more just) world. Of course, the costs outweigh. There are no benefits to recognizing animal rights. None. Meanwhile, there are huge costs:(1) Giving animals rights means stopping animal testing. However, the vast majority of our pharmaceuticals and medical advancements have come from studies using animals. Unsurprisingly, this research has saved countless lives, eliminated countless diseases, and even saved the lives of countless animals (veterinary science is a thing, too).(2) There is a risk that giving animals rights would degrade the importance of rights altogether. The inevitable result of viewing animals more like humans is to view humans more like animals. As a result, we could end up treating humans as badly as we treat animals, rather than treating animals as well as we treat humans.(3) Recognizing animal rights would add billions of potential new plaintiffs, along with billions in litigation costs, to an already overburdened court system. The only ones who benefit are lawyers. Everyone else loses.(4) Meat and seafood is fvcking awesome. It tastes amazing. It brings us intense pleasure. And it allows the creation of delectable gastronomic works of art. But recognizing animal rights means becoming a vegetarian. And that means we'll lose out on these pleasures, pleasures that are essential to our shared humanity. There is no better way to connect with someone than over oysters at your local seafood joint. (5) Hunting and fishing are also great ways to connect with your fellow humans. And they bring intense pleasure to those who do them. And they increase our respect for (and understanding of) animals and human nature. Of course, animal rights means doing away with these pleasures. Yet another loss to humanity.(6) Recognizing animal rights will lead to the extinction (or massive reduction in number) of many animals. This is because humans breed and protect many animals that wouldn't be bred or protected in a world where animals have rights. So, yes, recognizing animal rights is harmful to animals. And, yes, that's counterintuive. But it's true. And that brings me to my final point:We don't need to recognize animal rights to protect animal welfare. Just because I don't support an artificial construct of formal rights for animals doesn't mean I support animal cruelty. Humans should prevent unnecessary animal suffering, not because animals have rights, but because human interests (and utilitarian concerns) recommend limiting unnecessary animal suffering. For instance, utilitarianism isn't sufficient to justify rights or to justify violating rights. But that doesn't mean it's irrelevant to moral reasoning. Utilitarian calculations matter. And they adequately protect animals without needing to create a moral or legal equivalence between humans and animals.For all these reasons, and because an artificial construct of formal rights for animals would harm both humans and animals, vote Con. Sources1. http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org...2. Michael Perry, Toward a Theory of Human Rights: Religion, Law, Courts3. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice4. Rainer Forst, The Right to Justification: Elements of a Constructivist Theory of Justice