The Instigator
Prox
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AlextheYounga
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Whether animals deserve moral treatment.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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...
AlextheYounga
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,192 times Debate No: 23565
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Prox

Con

Con
Position: Animals neither have nor deserve rights, or any sort of moral treatment.

Specifically, I will be arguing that morality only makes sense with respect to human agents and agents that can/may mimick human intelligence. Animals should only be treated as things or property.

My opponent argues that animals should be treated with moral respect.

We each will have to posit and defend an ethical philosophy as a framework to consider this issue, along with the issue, itself.

After accepting this, the opponent will posit the definitions relevant to the debate, I will consider those and posit my own, he'll have an opportunity to do such again, and then we will begin concrete debate with Round 3.

=Structure=

R1 and R2: Acceptance/definitions
R3: Arguments
R4: Rebuttals
R5: Rebuttals
AlextheYounga

Pro

I accept.

Definitions:
morality-is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong).

Make your case.
Debate Round No. 1
Prox

Con

Animals are nonhuman members of the kingdom Animalia — from sponges to great apes.�

Moral treatment �is the treating of some being as a person included in moral claims such as "It's wrong to murder people".�

Human Intelligence is the ability to apply knowledge and skills as humans do in their thought.

And to say that animals deserve moral treatment is another way of saying that "It's morally wrong/right to treat animals in certain ways".
AlextheYounga

Pro

Okay, well I am going to go ahead and start my argument.

"Specifically, I will be arguing that morality only makes sense with respect to human agents and agents that can/may mimic human intelligence. Animals should only be treated as things or property."

Well lets look at animals that do mimic human intelligence.

Dolphins for example are one of the only animals that have sex for pleasure. They are one of the smartest animals we know of. They mimic humans in how they have companions, and also how they mourn for these companions. Dolphins can actually go through depressions. And of course, everyone has heard the stories of dolphins saving other dolphins, and even humans.

So, since these animals mimic human intelligence, even though just a more primitive form of human intelligence, shouldn't they be entitled to basic civil rights such as humans?

And with any animal no matter what, the depriving of something life is morally wrong. The idea of killing in itself, has been treated as morally wrong since the beginning of time. Even the Native Americans mourned for the buffalo they killed.

So killing in itself, is morally wrong. Even though we do raise and kill animals for food, this is still morally wrong. Even though we need to have this food, based on morals, animals do need to be treated with some respect, since they are alive.

Also, it is morally wrong to deprive something that has free will, of its freedom. Even though we do this, it is still morally wrong.



Debate Round No. 2
Prox

Con

Prox forfeited this round.
AlextheYounga

Pro

....................................................................
Vote Pro, I guess
Debate Round No. 3
Prox

Con

Prox forfeited this round.
AlextheYounga

Pro

..............Really?
Debate Round No. 4
Prox

Con

Prox forfeited this round.
AlextheYounga

Pro

Okay, well can people at least vote on this so its not a complete and total waste. Just vote about his first argument and mine.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by lindab 5 years ago
lindab
Hello My Dear,
my name is Linda in search of some one who will help me, but a mature some one with nice vision of what the world is all about my dear after reading your profile today i took interest in you, so please i will like you to contact me with my private email address at (lindababiker@/yahoo.in) for easy communication and to know each other well. I will be waiting to hear from you to enable me tell you more about me.
I wish you nice day.
Linda.
Posted by AlextheYounga 5 years ago
AlextheYounga
He obviously forfeited which makes me the winner.
Posted by AlextheYounga 5 years ago
AlextheYounga
Well, I couldn't have predicted he wasn't going to debate at all...
Posted by vbaculum 5 years ago
vbaculum
Challenge a more competent debater on this topic and I will gladly vote on the outcome.
Posted by AlextheYounga 5 years ago
AlextheYounga
Okay, well can people at least vote on this so its not a complete and total waste. Just vote about his first argument and mine.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
People are animals :P
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
ProxAlextheYoungaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Though I felt that Pro's arguments were rather weak in their purpose of defending animal rights, Con provided neither a rebuttal nor points of their own. Conduct goes to Pro for forfeits.