The Instigator
KaneJosephBaker
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Happyreclusive
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Animal Rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 424 times Debate No: 33584
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

KaneJosephBaker

Pro

Well my question is this: Should humans interfere when animal rights are concerned? For example, if you saw, or were made aware of an animal being mistreated, should you, and would you interfere? The situation that's made me raise this issue is as follows. A relative of mine has just moved in to a new home, and has found that a cat comes to visit the garden occasionally. I saw this cat today, and I think that it is ill in some way. It is very scruffy, and constatnly twitches it's head. It is clearly very young, and extremely skinny. It looks scruffy, but wen you stroke it (which I did) you can feel that it is skin and bone. What I want to do is call the animal protection, just to make them aware so that it could maybe get checked. (RSPCA in the UK). However, others have a different argument. They say that I should not do this, as it may put my relative that's moved in a difficult position with her new neighbours. And that I should not interfere with this cat, as it's ina busy residential area and may be being fed well and looked after - they asked me how I would feel if someone did that to our cat... my answer is that I would be grateful for their concern!
So - in a situation similar to this, do you think that interfering, and disregarding the possible inconvenience to a relative to potentially save this cat's life, is the right thing to do? Or is the correct thing to leave the cat. Bare in mind that I am very much an animal lover, and also act very hastily in similar situations - I always act with what I feel, however.
Happyreclusive

Con

I am not sure of the assumptions made in this debate. The initial question appears contradictory: "Should humans interfere when animal rights are concerned?" If animals have rights, then I"m not sure of the basis for interfering. (For example, I have rights, and that is what prevents you from interfering with me unless I ask otherwise.) Thus, I take the debate with the understanding that we do not assume that animals have rights. Either of us may argue that animals have rights or not, but it"s not assumed.

If Pro wishes to withdraw the issue based on my understanding, that no assumption about animals having or not having rights, I have no objection.

I begin with a small initial argument that animals do not have rights. Animals are owned. They are bought and sold like a table, a car, or a potted plant. Animals cannot have rights if they can be owned. I understand that many governments act as if animals can be owned and that they have rights, but governments are frequently wrong in their thinking. There is a contradiction in the notion that animal has a right to go its own way, so to speak, when its owner has authority to prevent the animal from going its own way.

Since the cat is owned, your moral duty is to the owner and not to the cat. If the cat is not owned, then you may claim it as your own and care for it in your own way. The same principle works for anything we find. If you find a wad of cash, your duty is to assume that it has an owner who wants the money back. But if you discover that the cash has no owner, then you may claim it.

Pro states that: "Bare (sic) in mind that I am very much an animal lover, and also act very hastily in similar situations - I always act with what I feel, however." I"m not sure how any of this supports his conclusion. Being an animal lover is nice, but honestly proves nothing. I would advise Pro to curb his acting hastily in any situation. And I counsel that he not always act with what he feels. After all, if he feels like punching his relative in the nose, his feelings are misleading.
Debate Round No. 1
KaneJosephBaker

Pro

KaneJosephBaker forfeited this round.
Happyreclusive

Con

I acknowledge the forfeit.
Debate Round No. 2
KaneJosephBaker

Pro

KaneJosephBaker forfeited this round.
Happyreclusive

Con

Happyreclusive forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
KaneJosephBaker

Pro

KaneJosephBaker forfeited this round.
Happyreclusive

Con

Happyreclusive forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
KaneJosephBaker

Pro

KaneJosephBaker forfeited this round.
Happyreclusive

Con

Happyreclusive forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by davidtaylorjr 3 years ago
davidtaylorjr
I'm confused as to what the sides are and what you are actually supporting....
Posted by Happyreclusive 3 years ago
Happyreclusive
Does the debate require that the opponent accept the premise that animals in fact have rights? That is, can this debate be whether or not animals have rights?
Posted by Crt 3 years ago
Crt
You are not making any statement. You are just asking questions and based on that it's also a question if we can debate at all? You need to take position in order for someone to contest it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.