The Instigator
Adilet.Konurbaev
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Should Apes be given Human Rights?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 3 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,160 times Debate No: 22316
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Adilet.Konurbaev

Con

The Great Ape Project is an appeal based on 36 scientists with specialties in different spheres which is aiming to give human rights to Great Apes especially the 3 main human rights.
Right now the GAP fights for giving apes the 3 main Human rights. First of the 3 main rights is the right for life or to live: the lives of the members of the community of equals are protected and can't be taken away except very strict circumstances like self-defense. Second is the right for protection of individual liberty: any member of the community of equals can fight for freedom if he or she were deprived of freedom without any legal process or if the person is not criminally liable. This person can be arrested or be deprived of freedom only if it is better for him/her or if he is dangerous for the community of equals or in other words for the people around him. Third rights is the prohibition of torture: any member of the community of equals can't be tortured and any pain provided to him or her against his or her will and not for the better to this person then it is counted as a torture and will lead to imprisonment of the torturer.And GAP's main reason of giving apes rights is that Great Apes are similar to Human Beings: Apes have social needs, will, behavior and thinking. Also they say that apes DNA is 95-99% similar to ours, but this one procents is the one which makes us different.
People who are against GAP think " Humans haverights, otheranimalsdon't -- no matter how human-like they are " and that giving apes right will lead to the end of researches and animal discrimination. Scientists think that giving apes rights will be the end of researches because ape will have the rights to be free and untouchable if it harms them and people who support this idea will just not allow have some experiments, researches based on apes. Scientist won't be able to see if some stuff are harmful for apes or humans because of no researches. Also giving apes right due to similarity, if it is like this than we can give rights to mice because mice's DNA is 90% similar to ours so they can have 90% of our rights? Than we must give every animal their right: elephants, dolphins and other mammals. Giving rights on such similarities isn't right. There must be more reasons for this.

Other people who are against this project say that " Animals have only one right" and this right: not to be a property of human beings. This concerns every animal , even farm animals or pets. Animals are living things and they were initially made not to be a property and to live how they are supposed to live. This is nature, but humans have broken their rights and now we must give them this only right "not to be property" so that they will live as they lived.So I think Apes must have one right : "not to be a property".
16kadams

Pro

=refutations=

My opponent has not proven that this will be a harm. A right is an entitlement to do certain actions, or be able too. [1] Giving apes rights is just, as even if we give them these rights they will not preform these rights. Example if we said they could drive cars, there would still be no downsides. The crazy green people would buy them cars (helping the economy), and then say have fun. The Ape, not smart enough to drive a car, would just break the car when it feels like hitting it. It wont drive the car nor harm the populace. Then the green person will but another car for it, and help the economy again. The cycle would continue, and I see no downsides.

Also lets look into the we would give all animals rights. This may or may not be true. Apes come from the same common ancestor we do, and share many common aspects with the human race. [2] As they have these abilities and similarities it is fair they deserve these rights, and as the defection is right to do things as they please. [1] Justice is defined as the equality of beings is just. [3] Aristotle believed things should get what they deserve, and what they are worth. [4] Now, one must ask what to apes deserve? They deserve basic rights of course, life, happiness, liberty etc. This means we needn't provide full rights to create equal rights. If we give them these basic necessities they already obtain equal rights. So, your argument hinges on the fact we must give them every single dang right in the world! This is false, as in Aristotle mind equality is based on what people deserve. So, we d not need to give them full equal rights to be equal. Your argument basically over glorifies the situation. Outlawing their hunting and letting them roam freely is equal rights in Aristotle eyes. So, we do not need to give them 100% of the rights that we have to give them "equal rights". This disproves your DNA argument.

My opponents final argument is they should have the right not to be owned. I fully agree. As to be equal they only need things they deserve, [4] and not to be property is something they deserve, giving this right makes them fairly equal.

=My case=

---> One does not need to give them gun rights and such to be equal, only things one deserve. As apes deserve not to be abused, tortured, hurt, not to be property, killed/hunted, and have the right to be free, with these minor rights right here they are technically equal. My opponents argument on they need 100% of our rights is false. These basic rights are all that is needed to be equal. As my opponent would likely agree with this fact, and it is just to have these rights to most animals, then to be equal all they need are a few rights. They do not even need "90% of our rights" as my opponent states, they only need these few rights. My point it is just to give these animals right to life, is it not?

---> As my opponent concedes these animals are very similar to humans. As the right to life and the other things I have stated these apes deserve to be equal, then they deserve these minor human rights to life and being free.

Conclusion:

As one only needs to have what they deserve to be equal, then my argument prevails. As anything almost deserves a right to life, then anyone who thinks animals that are wild that are so similar to a human needs to vote pro. Apes need:

1. as my opponent agrees a right not to be property
2. right to roaming free (in its habitat)
3. right to life

It deserves very few things. I have proven these minor rights are all it needs to be equal according to philosophers, [4] As an ape deserves these few rights only to be equal and free from abuse, and I have significantly proved these animals deserve these rights (remember as I close they only need what they deserve to be equal), then I urge a pro vote.

---> Apes deserve these minor rights
---> To be equal all they need are things they deserve
---> I have proven they deserve life and such
---> If we give them these rights they are equal
---> it is just to let them have life and such
---> as it is just to give them the right to life and freedom to roam, and they deserve this these are the only rights needed to be equal
---> resolution affirmed. Give apes the right to life and the few things they deserve to be equal. Vote PRO.







[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[4] http://plato.stanford.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 4 years ago
airmax1227
Adilet.Konurbaev16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons assertions went unproven. Pro rebuts most of Cons argument. would have benefited from a second round.
Vote Placed by Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
Adilet.Konurbaev16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: APES 4 LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!ONE!ONEONE!!!!1!!!!
Vote Placed by mee2kool4u369 4 years ago
mee2kool4u369
Adilet.Konurbaev16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: -