The Instigator
d1a6r7s1h9i9t8
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Vitreous
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Do non-human animal have 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 1 vote the winner is...
Vitreous
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,886 times Debate No: 22837
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

d1a6r7s1h9i9t8

Con

Resolution
Non Human animals donot have any rights at all

This is a serious debate
First round acceptance and resolution only Second and third round definition, rebuttals and arguments
Last round Summary and rebuttals only
Vitreous

Pro

I accept this debate which outlines a few parameters:
1)Animal speaks of non-human organisms
2)Seperating these animals from humans denotes these animals will not receive the same rights as humans.
3)The resolution stands Resolved:Non-Human Animals Do Not Have Any Rights At All
4)'At all' means Con must defend that Animals have absolutely no rights whatsoever.

I'd like to remind the audience that these aren't arguments, these are limits set forth (interpreted from the resolution) so that this does not become a troll debate or extra-resolutional. I await my opponent's case :).
Debate Round No. 1
d1a6r7s1h9i9t8

Con

Hello Ladies and Gentleman,

In this debate i would like to prove that Non-human animals donot have rights and donot need rights (burden of proof not resolution)

Definition :- I define animals as all non-human creature
Rights as a ability or a freedom to do something which changes a certain enviornment like right to vote and right of speech.

My arguments are as follows

Human beings are infinitely more complex than any other living (non-human) creatures. Their abilities to think and talk, to form social systems with rights and responsibilities, and to feel emotions are uniquely developed well beyond any other animals.

It is reasonable to try to prevent the most obvious cases of gratuitous suffering or torture of animals, but beyond that, non-human animals do not deserve to be given ‘rights’.

Can animals really do what human beings already have achieved?

In reality I think "Rights" are for people who want to make a difference to their surroundings.

Furthermore only human beings who are members of society are supposed to have ‘rights’. Rights are privileges that come with certain social duties and moral responsibilities. Animals are not capable of entering into this sort of ‘social contract’ – they are neither moral nor immoral creatures, they are amoral.

They do not respect our ‘rights’, and they are irrational and entirely instinctual. Amoral and irrational creatures have neither rights nor duties – they are more like robots than people. Non-human Animals are little more advanced than robots but they are puppets of the humans. We use animals for our necesseties like we use robots. Thus animals donot need rights as they do no respect our rights.

All human beings or potential human beings (e.g. unborn children) can potentially be given rights, but no non-human animals fall into that category.

Thus in conclusion Non-human animals donot need or deserve rights

Thank you for reading and awaiting reply from my opponent for round 2

Vitreous

Pro

"Heaven is by favor; it were by merit your dog would go in and you would stay out. Of all the creatures ever made, man is the most detestable. Of the entire brood, he is the only one. . . that possesses malice. He is the only creature that inflicts pain for sport, knowing it to be pain." Mark Twain

Value: Justice giving each their due (John Locke) infringing upon others rights
Value Premise: Distribution of freedom
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal rights outlined by Respect, No exploitation,
Allowed to procreate, No cruel acts, no killing for sport/no reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
right-a freedom ensured (requiring protection if threatened)

The resolution asks that today's round determines what a just society is, and within such a society, should the rights of animals exist? We can then interpret Justice as my Value. Let the aff break down Justice. Justice must concern itself with the protection and cultivation of given rights. Therefore, no law, institution, or person is just if it violates or ignores upon the rights of others. We then interpret that a just society formally acknowledges the rights of all individuals recognized to have rights within that society. We finally sum up justice into two main ideas: that work hand in hand.

1) Justice includes giving each recognized individual their due.
2) The rights within justice can not be infringed upon by others.

Rights themselves structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality perceived within the society. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority.


Contention 1) To accept that animals have rights only requires that one accept that there are certain things that humans ought not do to animals.

"To say that a being deserves moral consideration is to say that there is a moral claim that this being has on those who can recognize such claims. A morally considerable being is a being who can be wronged in a morally relevant sense." (2) Korsgaard's justification
This debate is only concerned with human to animal interaction because animal rights exist only in animal to human interaction, as humans alone have the power to recognize those rights while animals do not. To that end, there can be no expectation of reciprocation from the animals to humans. Do animals merit moral consideration? Can animals be wronged in a morally relevant way? Rights are the product of human reason, reason that enables us to recognize at minimum our obligation not to cause harm to the people and things we interact with.
In essence, simply because humans can abuse animals does not make us justified in doing so. That is not to say that humans and animals moral claims are equal, nor are human rights and animal rights equal. Because humans are superior in reason and interpretation our rights are superior to those of animals. Similarly though, that humans have superior rights does not strip animals of all rights or moral consideration. This is acceptable because merely "that non-human animals can make moral claims on us does not in itself indicate how such claims are to be assessed and conflicting claims adjudicated. Being morally considerable is like showing up on a moral radar screen - how strong the signal is or where it is located on the screen are separate questions." (2) Korsgaard's justification
We accept that animals experience pain, but also that they are incapable of reciprocating recognition of rights and therefore we do not senselessly abuse animals or expect them to recognize our right not to experience pain. If any being has an interest in avoiding pain, that being has a moral claim to pain avoidance because as Korsgaard so eloquently phrased it "to be in pain is a pain, and that is no trivial fact." (2)
What the moral significance of those claims are situational and beyond the scope of the resolution because if we accept that any being that has an interest in avoiding pain deserves to have that interest taken into account (recognized) by an individual capable of recognizing that right, then we accept that there are restrictions governing what humans may do to animals. From that conclusion we deduce that animals have rights; and that those rights are due recognition if they are to have significance.
By contrast, to assert that animals have no rights is to assert that there neither are nor ought to be any permissible limitations governing human to animal interaction. If animals have no moral claim whatsoever then there is no action, injury, or abuse which humans may inflict upon the animal kingdom with any consequence to the morality of the person causing the harm, nor to those that witness it. Accordingly, animals are due the right to not be made suffer without cause.


Contention 2) If we accept that there are certain things that humans ought not do to animals, then the rights of animals must be recognized by a just society.

If animals have rights, then to violate them without cause is unjust. What may constitute a viable cause to violate the rights of animals is another debate entirely and vary by context, but we may stipulate easily that (like with human to human interaction - though the cause to violate the rights of an animal, given that animals have less rights than humans, need not be as compelling as the cause to violate the rights of a human) it is permissible to conceive of a situation where the rights of humans and animals may be I conflict and it would be justifiable for a human to violate the rights of an animal.
A just society is of that upholds the values of its citizens. Humans, by our nature, have a sense of humanity and compassion. We do not delight in the suffering of animals, and as such we do not cause what we individually consider to be unnecessary suffering or inflict senseless pain. If we as a society accept that there are certain things that humans should not do to animals, then the task of justice is to prevent those things from occurring. Where animals have the right to not be subjected to unnecessary harm, any violation of that right is unjust. A just society then assumes the responsibility of preventing such an occurrence by codifying morality, accepted human ethical obligation into a system of law where penalties are established for violating those laws.
In that, the just society ensures that where any person violates those rights they are due consequence - and animal rights are recognized. If we accept that humans ought not bring about unnecessary harm to the animal kingdom, then we recognize animal right as individuals. A just society, being a reflection of the individuals it is constructed of, then is obliged to ensure that animals not be made to unnecessarily suffer. A society that does recognize animal right son any level does not accept any limitations governing what humans may or may not or ought or ought not do to animals, is unjust then because without recognition of animal rights on any level there is no restriction preventing senseless or causeless animal suffering.

In Summary:
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 form 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 recognized the rights and values of its members is required to recognize animal rights.

I assume refutations will be for rounds 3 and 4, though I am unsure. Yet, to be fair, I will post my rebuttal next round to provide an even amount of refutation. If my opponent preffered a rebuttal in this round, I am trully sorry, but I do hope we can continue rather than stop midway of this debate. Thank You.
Debate Round No. 2
d1a6r7s1h9i9t8

Con

Thank you Pro for providing us with your case,
I acknowledge all my opponents definitions
This round is for arguments
The last round will be rebuttals and summary

My opponent have forgotten one thing when he summed up justice
He has forgotten that animals are not yet recognized individual. If they (animals) were recognized individual than, Why do we still have animal activists equivalent to terrorist? They donot even value the more important life (human life)

Contention 1 -
It is perfectly natural to use animals for our own nutrition and pleasure – in the wild there is much suffering as animals struggle to survive, are hunted by predators, and compete for food and resources.

Human beings have been successful in this struggle for existence and do not need to feel ashamed of exploiting their position as a successful species in the evolutionary process. It is like telling herbivorous dinosaurs not to eat too much amounts of grass(Herbivorous dinosaurs used to eat a lot of grass.)

Qoute - "Survival of the fittest"
Over many decades people of different races and different genders have fought for their own right. It has been years of struggle for all human beings. This paragraph coincidentally also highlights the majority of the information which the history books contain, Struggle is the key to success.

Contention 2 -
Furthermore, Animal Rights activists are people who volunteer to give animals rights but the reality is far more grosteque and flabbergast. Animal Rights activists are hypocrites, extremists, and terrorists who don’t even care about human life. Organisations such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) use terrorist tactics and death-threats; PETA are also an extremist organisation.

These AR extremists still avail themselves of modern medicine, however, which could not have been developed without experiments and tests on animals. Animal welfare is a reasonable concern, but talking of animal ‘rights’ is a sign of extremism and irrationality.
How can any one justify rights for creatures that donot add anything to the enviornment for the benefit of their own species or other creatures.

Contention - 3
Creatures in the world are described in many categories but for this debate I am going to concentrate on the 4 main categories
- Pets
Pets are creature which majority of humans love and are taken care of by us human but the sad reality is that they are pointless and lead a very sad life. Rights for creatures which are lazy and donot want to achieve something in their life is totally outrageous, unless opponent can justify a suitable reason and a right for these categories of creatures(pet)
http://www.smh.com.au...;

-Pest
Cane toads exemplify a pest. These creatures are hated by all humans. Thus any human would not even want to desire a right for pest like cane toads. Quick fact - Cane toads to human population of Australia is 5 cane toads to one Australian

-Domestic animals
These animals are killed or their resources are used for human benefit. If these animals are given a right to choose if they want to lend or not lend their resources. Then all human populace will start illegal harvesting of resources like the Japanese whalers. This will not be beneficial as the society will start to become very immoral and maybe rich(Black market).

-Wild animals
This animals rarely communicate with humans. The ones that are under the human sight will either be killed or will become extinct(reproduction in these animals take a longer time and is slower). Laws should be made for their welfare but giving them rights will be absurd

My last contention -
The fact that we are (incredibly distantly) related to other animals does not mean that it makes sense to talk about them having ‘rights’. This sort of thinking would have absurd consequences: e.g. saying that we should respect the ‘right’ to life of bacteria, or the ‘right’ of the AIDS virus to move freely and without restriction, and to associate freely with other living organisms.

The emotion of sympathy and pity towards all animals who maybe suffering is human nature. We might wish to reduce unnecessary animal suffering, but not because all creatures to which we are distantly related have rights or need rights.

Thank you for reading
Awaiting Opponent(Pro)'s reply
Vitreous

Pro

Vitreous forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
d1a6r7s1h9i9t8

Con

Hi ladies and gentleman
Welcome to the last round of this debate,
Before I start my case I would like to present few flaws with opponents small case.
My opponent has mentioned in all his contentions that :
- "A just society that recognized the rights and values of its members is required to recognize animal rights" but my opponents have clearly forgotten that many people in greed and money forget and break the animal welfare law. The illegal animal abuse is seen over my diary farms and forests around the world.
Japanese abuse whales and over hunt the endangered blue whales
Many diary farms around USA treat domestic animals like Chicken and Cows are treated very badly. Just to name a few example
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com...;
Now on to my case
After four rounds , My opponents case has boiled to two main issues
- Animals should have rights because
-- one accept there are certain things that humans ought not do to animals
-- and if we accept the first argument then rights of animals should be recognized by just a just society

Whilst my case as boiled down to 5 points
-Humans beings are more complex and better than other non human animals. Thus they donot deserve to be given rights
-"Rights" are not built for creatures that donot make a difference to their surroundings like humans
-It is perfectly natural to use animals for our own nutrition and pleasure as in the wild there is much suffering as animals struggle to survive, are hunted by predators, and compete for food and resources.
- Animals rights activist who are supposed to help non human animals gain "rights" are hypocrites, extremists, and terrorists who don’t even care about human life
- Last not the least point , The fact that we are (incredibly distantly) related to other animals does not mean that it makes sense to talk about them having ‘rights’.

In conclusion it is in the best of all creature that non animals should not be given rights as disadvantages clear outrule the advantages
Thank you for reading
Vitreous

Pro

I am sorry about the previous round, I had an after school activity and my bus schedules were messed up so by the time I got home, it was too late :(. But i provided refutation for both of Con's rebuttals to make up for my previous round. I wll flow through the organization my opponent has, then move to weighing. I will start with his 1st rebuttal, then move to his second.

First rebuttal
First, my opponent states animals are recognized as individuals. Wether or not they are does deduce that as a whole, they deserve justice and require animal rights. His other point only reaffirms me by showing the cruelty of HUMANS, not animals, organization's actions were defined by humans, not by the animals so don't let this trick you.

Contention 1
I agree with the nutrition portion since it provides a reason. However, the pleasure is. My opponent goes on to state how humans are the greatest and how they exploit animals. But by stating this, my opponent acknowledges that without rights, humans would be free to do this. So, we then understand with rights, animals wont be exploited/abused for no reason.
First, my opponent attempts to refute my just society point by talking about how humans abuse animals. Yet this clearly shows that animals DO need rights or they will be abused by humans. He follows up with a survival of the fittst point, my highly doubt that struggle involves brutally torturing other species for no reason.

Contention 2
An entire contention about the ruthlessness of humans. Yet it involves no personal interaction by any other animal. So, you assert animal have done nothing no to deserve rrights, and human ruthlessness demands animals have right or they will be exploited.

Contention 3
Outlines categories for animals then specifies i sall argue for each category he lists.

Pets-Provide happiness for heir owners, may have a chance of being abused(causing a life of fear and mistrust), and a chance of being killed for fun. Don't believe me? Here are some links:
http://www.nbcdfw.com...
http://stopanimalabuse.blogspot.com...
same case in following 2 links
http://www.nowpublic.com...
http://abclocal.go.com...
This clearly shows animals NEED rights or they will be constantly and bruttaly exploited, just for the pleasure of humans(as Con states)

Pests- a form of necessary action, therefor i do not have to argue this.

Domestic animals-A useless point. My opponents believes animals will have the 'right' to choose, but look to the rights I provided(which were not refuted) and denote this entire argument for domestic animals should be dropped since 1)it is still necessary action(nutrition), thus i do not have to refute this 2)Right that Con outlines is completely nonsensical.

Wild Animals-"Laws should be made for their welfare but giving them rights will be absurd". Quite a contradicting statement. The opponent basically states we should outline their protections, but not acknowledging what outlines their protections. First, since my opponent agrees things should be done for their welfare, he then interprets that their welfare should always be preserved. Thus my opponent AGREES that animals have rights.

Contention 4
Another weak point, because if they cause harm, then it would be necessary action to harm such things as viruses and detrimental bacteria. And finally this recognizing that we have the ability to reduce animal suffering stems from recognizing that those animals have a claim on their life as well as preserving their life and safety. Thus concedes to the idea that animals have rights.

Second Rebuttal

On to his case. my opponent lists what I outline. But again, clearly denote that my opponent supports me with his statement, " Japanese abuse whales and over hunt the endangered blue whales. Many diary farms around USA treat domestic animals like Chicken and Cows are treated very badly." This clearly denotes that my opponent agrees there are things human ought not do to animals and thus he agrees the rights should be recognized by a just society. Then my opponent lists five points which i will now refute:

-"Humans beings are more complex and better than other non human animals. Thus they donot deserve to be given rights"
So, since other animals are more simple and maybe even can't defend themselves as well as humans, they should not recieve rights to outline their protections? A very weak point the Con makes which can be matched to Hitler's idea that Jews had no rights, because they were inferior to the German race. Con should give a little more thought to this point.

-"Rights" are not built for creatures that donot make a difference to their surroundings like humans
I must digress. Animals are defined by that habitat, help refertilize our habitat so trees can grow so organisms have more oxygen, and only attack through self defense. Humans destroy habitats to ake their own, pollute, and murder senslessly. Unless my opponent wants he animals to cause destruction too, i stand animals must have rights.

-It is perfectly natural to use animals for our own nutrition and pleasure as in the wild there is much suffering as animals struggle to survive, are hunted by predators, and compete for food and resources.
Nutrition i agree(necessary use as stated in my case), but pleasure is another reason why they deserve rights. Otherwise they will continuously be exploited by humans and maybe even driven to a point endangerement.

- Animals rights activist who are supposed to help non human animals gain "rights" arehypocrites, extremists, and terrorists who don’t even care about human life.
Their actions are not influenced by animals, nor does it show malicous actions by animals, it just shows the cruelty of humanity and how it extends not only to animals, but humans too. So again i stand animals must have rights since they were not responsile for the actions of a human organization.

- Last not the least point , The fact that we are (incredibly distantly) related to other animals does not mean that it makes sense to talk about them having ‘rights’.
Wether they are related to us or not, they influence their enviroment and even help us and we return the favor through sensless killing. I must urge that animals require rights.

Weighing
Clearly, my opponents arguments were refuted while my case stands. In fact, Con only attacked my case in the second rebuttal (and not even my entire case), and i properly defended, which means all I provided remains standing. I am also winnin on logic since my opponent contradicts himself at some points. I also outline animal rights in my case as:

Animal rights outlined by Respect, No exploitation,

Allowed to procreate, No cruel acts, no killing for sport/no reason.

My opponent on the other hand provides no outline of animal rights. Furthermore, I show how my stance is correct, show that my opponent RECOGNIZES THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS HUMANS SHOULD NOT DO TO ANIMALS, and in turn prove that my opponent as well as I recognize animals deserve some rights.. Finally, I am winning the BoP since i succesfully prove animals do require rights, while my opponent fails to uphold his. Thus you vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by imachair 5 years ago
imachair
http://www.debate.org...
That is all
Posted by d1a6r7s1h9i9t8 5 years ago
d1a6r7s1h9i9t8
Vote con
Some one plz vote it does not take long

Animals do not need, deserve or ask for rights. So vote COn
Posted by Vitreous 5 years ago
Vitreous
alright, again im terribly sorry
Posted by d1a6r7s1h9i9t8 5 years ago
d1a6r7s1h9i9t8
we can continue vitreous no need to worry
:-)
Posted by Vitreous 5 years ago
Vitreous
ugh i'm terribly sorry, my bus was delayed and by the time i arrived home, it was too late :( I'm trully sorry, but i hope we can continue
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
d1a6r7s1h9i9t8VitreousTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: just because animals are not as complex as humans it surely does not mean they dont deserve ANY rights. Even though Pro FF a round their arguments were still more convincing to me so args to the pro, conduct to the con, but spelling to the Pro since Con made many spelling errors and bolded all of his arguments.