Animal Rights Ought to be recognized in society

Contention 1 - Morality Humans have been given the capability to be moral beings. Animal rights teach us that certain things are wrong as a matter of principle, that there are some things that it is morally wrong to do to animals. Human beings must not do those things, no matter what the cost to humanity of not doing them. Human beings must not do those things, even if they do them in a humane way. For example: "if animals have a right not to be bred and killed for food then animals must not be bred and killed for food." It makes no difference if the animals are given 5-star treatment throughout their lives and then killed humanely without any fear or pain - it's just plain wrong in principle, and nothing can make it right. Whilst you may argue that animal are immoral that is not a reason as to why we should behave in the same manner. Firstly, this argument raises a number of issues. The first issue that this raises is that animals are actually moral to some extent. They care for their families in most instances so therefore whilst they may not have the same rationality to the same extent as us, animals do have rationality though and this argument regarding morality is flawed. A person with certain mental limitations does not have the same rational processing as other people - does this mean that thy do not deserve their basic human rights. The same concept can be used towards babies. Babies are not capable of moral thought - at least not to the same extent that adults can think. There is also another major flaw in suggsting that animals are irrational. Whilst animals may not all be as rational and moral as some human beings. There are many humans who have committed crimes much worse than th crimes that people claim that animals have committed. If you claim that animals are irrational then surely you must say the same about human beings. Human beings have caused things like, the holocaust, 9/11 and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you call those acts moral? The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki may be a debatable subject however very rarely do you ever see somebody debating whether or not the holocaust was moral as a serious debate. Contention 2 - Needless Suffering To be free from needless suffering is perhaps the most fundamental right. If something is capable of needlessly suffering, inherently there exists a right to not be subject to such suffering. This leads us with one simple question. Can Animals suffer? The general consensus is that some animals do in fact feel pain. Many governments around the world recognize this truth and have in response passed regulations that minimize or eliminate such pain.For example the U.S. Government has such regulations. "The requirement or recommendation to consider the recognition and alleviation of pain in laboratory animals when conducting research in the United States is constituted in federal law, regulations, and guidelines, enforced by the US Public Health Service Policy, and promulgated by various professional organizations"If we accept, as most do that animals are capable of needlessly suffering, then it follows that a just society would not allow such animals to suffer needlessly. Contention 3 - Responsibility We have power and I am not denying that we are intelectually superior to animals, I just believe that they deserve rights. Elephants may be much bigger than us and possess bigger ears, but they don't build luxury sports cars for themselves or play elephant chess.This power leaves us with two options. We could use this power to benefit animals, or we could use it to harm animals. Human self-interest would be the reason for wielding this power to hurt animals. Whatever we decide here - helping or harming - is what we have a moral responsibility to do. If there are ever any instances where the animal should be helped this should be considered to be a privaledge - if there are many such general instances it is a right. Let me explain - take the right to life, as an example. The animal wants to live. Helping it (the compassionate alternative) means not to kill it. Harming it (the selfish alternative) means to kill it. At the point where you are not harming it, you are giving that animal the privilege of life. When that principle is applied equally and fairly across many different types of animals, it becomes a general ethic for all animals, such that it can be properly called a rights that those animals now possess. What I am saying is that I believe that compassion is a more responsible alternative to selfishness. As the charter for compassion affirms: "Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensable to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community". Of course, just because it says that doesn't prove it's true, so what does?We have recentlly been provided with the information scientifically that love - both towards people and animals - is better for us than being self-centered and careless. For example, we now know that compassion and love is positively correlated with happiness and healthiness. The concept that great power implies great responsibility is a popular one, and it seems, for good reason. Further research suggests that love is an evolved part of what makes us who we are. But these are ultimately the selfish reasons to not be selfish, which isn't a great standard. Even if you don't accept this assessment, the claim that compassion is never the better option towards animals in a given situation seems to me to be a very much mistaken notion. In Summery:To accept that animals have rights is to accept that there are certain things that humans shouldn't do to animals. Because there are limitations (moral or otherwise) governing what humans should and should not do to animals, animals have rights that stem from those limitations. Most reasonable humans do not abuse animals for this reason, and because most people disapprove of animal abuse (in the abstract sense) a just society that recognizes the rights and values of its members is required to recognize animal rights in order to be just. Sources http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...http://greatergood.berkeley.edu...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://charterforcompassion.org...