Animal Rights: DogmaticTrip vs. Tom Sawyer

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This thread has been set up for a formal debate between DogmaticTrip and Tom Sawyer on the following question:

Are animals deserving of the right to life and other moral considerations?

DogmaticTrip will argue for the position of animal rights and Tom Sawyer will argue for the position against animal rights. The debate will be set up in the following way, with each debater switching roles affirming and taking the negative as agreed to from the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=1878644&postcount=23):

Set 1:
- DogmaticTrip argues his/her position; Tom Sawyer rebuts.
- DogmaticTrip defends; Tom Sawyer rebuts.
- DogmaticTrip concludes.

Set 2:
- Tom Sawyer argues his position; DogmaticTrip rebuts.
- Tom Sawyer defends; DogmaticTrip rebuts.
- Tom Sawyer concludes.

Conclusion: DogmaticTrip concludes; Tom Sawyer concludes.

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=101303) is set up in the Moral Foundations & Principles forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Good luck to both participants!

- NS, FD Moderator

[DogmaticTrip]

First off, I'd like to thank IIDB, and Nightshade for making any debate possible, and I'd also like to thank my opponent, Tom Sawyer, for accepting the debate. I look forward to seeing what you have to say; and in our coalescence, let's have the truth come out

Opening statement

What possible arguments could a person use to justify the slaughter of billions? There are many that I have heard, but none that adequately answer the question. In fact, I propose that there is no justification, no matter how eloquently the anti-animal rights brutalitarian may put it. Just as Racism is inherently cruel, because it judges the person based on skin color, so too is specieism, as it devalues the life based on a different amount of legs and a different genome type. Sentience, the ability to feel emotion, and have interests - either of staying alive, or of having a future, this is the only way to determine whether a being is equally deserving of moral consideration, or not.

This is what animal rights is about: abolishing all animal exploitation because animals are sentient and can suffer. An animal is equal to a human in many respects, most notably in its ability to feel pain. Freedom to life for all animals is the inevitable outcome of the animal rights movement. It's what we strive for.


My question:

Why wouldn't an animal be equally deserving of the right to life as a human?


The "Animals do it" argument

example: Animals eat each other, and I am simply an advanced animal; therefore I am justified in eating animals. (Or even: Why do you hold humans to a 'higher morality' that you don't to an animal?



This seems to be two arguments in one:

One argument is asserting that we are justified in doing something because an animal does it. The other is asserting that we are just another predator.

Justification based on the actions of another animal?

And why should we emulate the actions of a "beast" that we deem worthy of death? Surely, it would be frowned upon if we acted as a gorilla, and stole each others property? Or, perhaps if we reciprocated the Galapagos lizards' tendency to rape members of the opposite sex? My point is thus; this is a hypocritical argument. It asserts that we are justified in doing what animals do to each other; even though we'd consider it immoral to our own species. The obvious fallacy is this: it's inconsistent. We apply it as a justification for our lack of moral responsibility because we are naturally going to do what animals do, yet deny the logic when it is applied to our own species.

Are we just another predator?

It is, perhaps, a mistake to label us as a "predator" in the natural sense of the word. Other predator animals do not domesticate their prey, nor build factory farms, slaughterhouses, fur farms, et cetera. Show me one other animal that destroys ecosystenms, and causes extinction? If humans were living in a primitive hunter - gatherer state, this issue would be different. But until we live like an Aboriginal, this is no justification.


The "Consciousness is subjective" argument


example: you don't know what's conscious or not - like plants!

Plants are, generally, deemed to not have the capacity for consciousness, nor pain. The Animal rights movement is not about "not killing animals because they are alive", but, "not killing animals because they are sentient, and can feel pain." Plants do not meet the criteria, therefore, they do not deserve the right to life.

Some may argue that a plant is, in fact, able to feel emotion, and are conscious - but to these few, I argue: The fact that an animal may react to it's environment is no way concluding that this is a conscious being, and science will back me up, when I say: A plant can not feel pain, and it does not wish to stay alive, so it is not afforded any rights. It may react well to gentle music, but this is in no way an accurate description of consciousness.

However, let's give some serious thought into what a consciousness is:

There is not one universal definition of this word. Its very state of being is being questioned, making it very difficult to define. However, it is usually connected to qualities of self-awareness, being responsive to surroundings, and sentience. The ambiguity of its definition is more than mere semantics. Many theorists agree that it is unable to be univocally defined, however, that it may vaguely be described as an “awareness”. It encompasses all thoughts, feelings, and emotion - all mental responses to the environment, and a general state of “being awake”.

The problem with these definitions is that they are oversimplified and often only synonyms of the actual word. This makes it a challenge to agree on it’s description. However, though we cannot define it, we can still understand the concept. Consciousness, the state of being aware, or awakened, is valued highly among the thoughtful, as without it - we would be in a vegetative state. We would be unable to create or respond to stimulus, we would be unable to value anything, and we’d be unable to have thoughts, or emotions.

This arises the question: If that is so, then is sleep a lack of consciousness? In the dream-state, we are visually and aurally aware, and sometimes, we attain lucidity, which is a complete awareness. As it contains much of what we have roughly described consciousness to be, I would deem dreams as a conscious state. But, while dreamless - where we feel nothing, and see nothing - this is what we may imagine complete lack of consciousness to be. It may even be considered a death-like state. In a dreamless sleep, the sleeper is similar to a vegetable, in that he is not conscious. Thus, the lack of consciousness is not desirable to most, as it is a trait that one may apply to rocks, wood, and inanimate objects.

The question of how a consciousness is produced is often asked, by scientists and philosophers alike. We receive sensory data, make notes, feel emotion - and this is consciousness, of a sort. However, what is actually happening? We are feeling the activities of the electro-chemical processes of the brain. Nor-epinephrine, Serotonin, Dopamine, and Acetylcholine are, most probably, the main neurotransmitters that create consciousness. Chemicals, and electricity inside the brain regulate emotion.

There is no conclusive evidence that shows plants are able to produce consciousness - and it is a common sort of knowledge that consciousness is borne from the brain, which plants are missing, yet animals have.


The "It's natural" argument

example: Our bodies were naturally designed for eating meat.

First of all, I'd say that as the word "designed" is implying that mankind was created by a deity, and that this is a whole other debate. If, however, assuming that it simply means that it is "natural" for us to consume flesh: I'd say:

So what?

Instead of arguing the physiology of the human, it'd do just as much good to make the point that: a gun is made to shoot something. Does that mean a person should use it for this purpose? To specify, I mean that a persons teeth, or intestines may be "designed", or is a more "natural" thing for us to use to consume meat, but that as long as we cause ourselves no illness, it's irrelevant.

A defense for the animals

Now that I've rebutted the 3 most common arguments, I shall try to make a case for the animals. And as such a magnanimous argument is being put forward, I will start with another question: Why wouldn't animals be deserving of the right to life? I think it comes down to a form of prejudiced belief. Rather, speciesism.

The reason animals are 'deserving of the right to life' is because they are sentient, and have the ability to suffer. That is to say, all of our defining attributes: the ability to reason, the ability to speak, the ability to rationalize - have no bearing on our own right to life. How can this claim be effectively explained? Let me try:

Other animals are less intelligent than us, this I do not deny. It is merely this - intelligence should not be a determining factor in a creature's intrinsic worth. If this were so, infants, elderly, autistic, retarded, and the insane would be slaughtered in seconds.

The ability to speak should not be a condemning factor in a creatures demise - else, mutes would be destroyed. Besides, I believe animals do have a basic communication amongst themselves; not only do humans not understand it, but, generally - they don’t try to.

Nor should any physical differences be thought of as a justification to murder, though this reason, I suspect, is why animals are slaughtered so unmercifully. For the same reasons some murderers may splash paint on, beat to unrecognizable pulps, or otherwise changing the features of humans before they kill them, so too is the reason why animals are slaughtered without mercy: de-humanize, un-anthropomorphize, and otherwise relieve the guilt from the killer. If something looks different from a human, it is natural to want to separate yourself from it, as much as possible. An animal is looked on as different, therefore, we separate ourselves, claiming that we aren’t truly “animals”, and that they are simply our food.

Historically, rights weren’t created for the benefit of all humankind - just the wealthy elite. But, the concept of “rights” were extended to encompass more human beings [See: Magna Carta] - like the different-colored races, women, children, and even the mentally handicapped, even though they could not understand the concept of a ‘right’. I see no logical conclusion that would lead me to believe that rights should not be extended to protect members of a different species.

Animals must deserve rights - at least, if humans do. What characteristics enables a human to deserve rights? Perhaps it is that humans can feel emotion. More importantly, that humans are fully capable of suffering. If we look back at our history to the concentration camps, or to the world wars, or to any part of history that is remembered for the deaths of many - we feel sympathy. Whatever the race of the oppressed may be, it is fact that, generally, we feel sympathy. If it is not a different race, or religion that makes humankind value any human more than another, then why species? If emotion, and suffering are our reasons for making humankind equal, then how can we not give rights to those that are equally capable of suffering, or feeling emotion?

How can one divide the value and take away a creature's born-with right to life? We allow the majority of man to have rights, because no matter our differences, it is because they can suffer. It is for this reason, the reason of suffering, that we afford rights to all man. Animals can suffer, so we must extend our circle of compassion to encompass all sentient creatures.

Perhaps the thought of giving rights to an animal may seem ludicrous, but.. on what grounds? Animals can feel pain, can love, can express feelings, can mate, can organize, can hunt, can have fun - so why should their capability of experiencing things make them less deserving of right? Or, more specifically:

How can one think an animal as worthless, and still think of the mammal: homo-sapiens as deserving of life?

Do you have a dog? Any pet owner would testify that it is "like a member of the family". That they almost consider it equal. What attributes leads them to draw this coclusion? I can honestly say that I don't know. But I do believe that when you look into a dogs eyes, see it looking back, that you will see that it is, in fact, a creature deserving of some rights.


"Alas, what wickedness to swallow flesh into our own flesh, to fatten our greedy bodies by cramming in other bodies, to have one living creature fed by the death of another! In the midst of such wealth as earth, the best of mothers, provides, nothing forsooth satisfies you, but to behave like the Cyclopes, inflicting sorry wounds with cruel teeth! You cannot appease the hungry cravings of your wicked, gluttonous stomachs except by destroying some other life." - Pythagoras, depicted in "Metamorphoses" by Ovid.

Let's examine animal testing (or vivisection), so that I may understand how you think:

Now, what is vivisection? Performing experiments on non-consenting living creatures. This is torture - no ifs, no ands, and no buts. Whether it benefits the human race or not, is not the issue right now - what the issue is: Is it morally acceptable to torture a creature, for any reason? As I see it, the answer is no. Perhaps once you explain your position, I can argue more effectively.

Vivisectionists perform experiments on creatures to find cures, treatments, and antidotes to diseases/ailments that infect humanity. The life of a few hundred chimpanzee's, or a few hundred pigs, go towards the aim of helping humankind. This sounds like a noble deed - a small group sacrificing themselves for all of humanity, however I do not think it so. The "noble hero's" are non-consenting - they are tortured, and drugged to find out what works and what doesn't. Perhaps, if the creatures would agree to it, it would be different, but since the animals don't have an understanding of what these "scientists' are going to attempt, they can't consent.



"At the moment our human world is based on the suffering and destruction of millions of non-humans. To perceive this and to do something to change it in personal and public ways is to undergo a change of perception akin to a religious conversion. Nothing can ever be seen in quite the same way again because once you have admitted the terror and pain of other species you will, unless you resist conversion, be always aware of the endless permutations of suffering that support our society." - Arthur Conan Doyle



[note to Tom Sawyer: Perhaps this is too short, but I will try to write more, as I come to understand your position]

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Tom Sawyer,

Please note that your recent submitted statement has been declined due to it substantially exceeding the word limit agreed to in the FDP parameters. Please re-submit your statement so that it is within 5000 words.

Thank you for your consideration,

- NS, FD Moderator

[Tom Sawyer]

I'd like to thank DT for agreeing to this debate with me. Since there are two sections to this debate, I'm going to try and limit this post to a direct refutation of DT's points and save my own assertions as to why animals are not deserving of the right to life to the second section. There will be some overlap between the two, of course, but I'll try to keep them as separate as possible.

In order to keep this post under the word count limit, I’ve only quoted the headers of the sections that I’m responding to up until his “A defense for the animals� argument. Please refer to DT’s post to get the full text of his argument.



{Opening Statement}



My position is that the only rights that animals need to be afforded are based on how the humans that those animals are around are affected by the actions towards those animals. I'll get into the why of that in the second section of the debate, just keep in mind that that's the main position that I'm arguing from. Granted, animals are sentient and can feel pain, but that fact in and of itself does not mean that animals are the moral equivalent of humans and should be granted the same rights, specifically the right to life, that are given to humans. Additionally, I have problems equating the notion of specieism with that of racism. True, both devalue life, but the fact that one devalues the life of an animal and the other devalues the life of a human being means that you cannot draw any kind of moral equivalency between the two.

As an example, consider the following three situations:

1) Scientist A has an orphan child he adopted (I’ll use orphans in my example, so there’s no biological connection to complicate things). He loves this child and the child gives his life joy. The child develops an incurable disease and Scientist A wants to discover a cure for this disease to save the life of his adopted child. In working to find this cure, he kills 1000 rats in medical experiments.

2) Scientist B has a pet rat. He loves this rat and the rat gives his life joy. The rat develops an incurable disease and Scientist B wants to discover a cure for this disease to save the life of his pet. In working to find this cure, he kills 1000 orphaned children in medical experiments.

3) Scientist C has an orphaned white child he adopted. He loves this white child and the white child gives his life joy. The white child develops an incurable disease and Scientist C wants to discover a cure for this disease to save the life of his adopted white child. In working to find this cure, he kills 1000 orphaned black children in medical experiments.

Now, are these three situations morally equivalent? If you take the position that animals deserve the same right to life as humans, then all three are equally immoral, since all sacrifice 1000 lives in an attempt to save the life of one. However, if the lives of 1000 rats are unimportant as compared to the life of one human – meaning that the rats do not have the same right to life as the human does – then there is nothing morally wrong about Scientist A’s actions, since sacrificing all those animals to save a single human is a morally justifiable action. Similarly, preserving the lives of those 1000 rats at the cost of the life of one human would be morally indefensible. This is the position that I take.

Now in terms of Scientists B and C, both of them are acting immorally and there is no justification for their actions. The question, as relates to the issue of specieism vs racism, is are they equally immoral, or is one worse than the other? I would say that Scientist B is the worse offender here, for although Scientist C is slaughtering 1000 humans to save the life of one and is specifically slaughtering 1000 humans of a different race, the fact that Scientist B is killing 1000 humans to save the life of one rat makes his actions even more immoral than those of Scientist C because at least Scientist C is trying to save the life of a human being as opposed to a mere animal. If specieism and racism were morally equivalent, then the two would be equally bad, but since the life of a rat is worth less than the life of a human, then slaughtering 1000 humans to save one rat is the most immoral action here, so saying that specieism is as inherently cruel as racism does not stand up to reason.



The "Animals do it" argument

{trim}

This seems to be two arguments in one:

One argument is asserting that we are justified in doing something because an animal does it. The other is asserting that we are just another predator.

Justification based on the actions of another animal?



I have to agree with you here, the “Animals do it� is a bad argument for saying that animals should be denied rights. Looking through your logic, though, I would come to a different conclusion than you based on your premises. You say that it is OK for animals to kill each other, since they are only animals and not OK for us to kill animals since we are human. What underlies that argument is the fact that different moral standards have to be applied to humans than are applied to animals. Since different moral standards have to be applied to the two groups, you cannot then say that the two groups are morally equivalent.

You say that humans should not lower ourselves to the level of animals, by acting like gorillas or lizards, to justify our actions. Implicit in that is the assumption that animals are “lower� than humans. From a biological and evolutionary standpoint, that makes no sense, since there are no creatures that are “higher� or “lower� than others. From a moral standpoint, however, it is quite justified that we have a separation between humans, who can be accountable for moral action, and animals, which cannot. Just as you argue that humans should not lower ourselves to the level of animals to justify our actions towards them, I similarly argue that animals should not be raised to the level of humans when determining whether our actions towards them are just. Since there is a moral distinction between humans and non-humans, saying that non-humans are morally equivalent and deserving of the same rights afforded to humans is incorrect.


Are we just another predator?

{trim}


On a side note to the debate, it is not a mistake to label humans as predators in the natural sense of the word, since that is what we are. We’re simply better at it since we have evolved to use our intelligence and our technology as our natural advantage where other creatures have evolved to use claws and wings. To say that the application of our technology to feed on our prey, through slaughterhouses and the like, is somehow “unnatural� is as nonsensical as saying that dogs are unnatural for using their hardened teeth to catch prey. It’s simply the evolutionary advantage that has evolved to allow us and them to survive and prosper. The reason that we tend to destroy ecosystems at a greater rate than other species is that the advantages of the predators and prey generally evolve at about the same rate, while there is nothing that has evolved in our prey to compete with the advantages of intelligence and the application of technology that it brings that we have evolved to use in our predatory behaviors.

Also, the idea that hunter-gatherer societies don’t destroy ecosystems doesn’t hold up to the facts. Read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. He gives some good evidence that the mass extinctions of native creatures in both the Americas and Australia coincided almost exactly with the arrival of primitive hunter-gatherer human tribes to those areas.



The "Consciousness is subjective" argument


example: you don't know what's conscious or not - like plants!

{trim}


To say that plants don’t have the capacity for pain just doesn’t bear out to the evidence. They produce enzymes in response to negative stimuli, such as insect bites, and the fact that that they produce these enzymes means that they feel the stimulus and they don’t like it and want to do something about it. But the question is, is this reaction similar to animals’ reactions when they experience pain? If it is, then saying that plants do not meet the criteria of being sentient and feeling pain is wrong and drawing a line between animals and plants to determine which has rights and which does not based on this criteria doesn’t hold up. Since we obviously can’t ask the plants, we have to use other methods to determine whether or not their experience is similar to the experience of animals. One way that this was done was to pain relievers such as Aspirin to plants to see if they affected this chemical reaction. The answer was yes:

Asprin Blocks Plant Pain (http://clasdean.la.asu.edu/news/aspirin.htm)

Aspirin, the researchers discovered, interrupts the production of a key compound that plants produce in response to physical injury in much the same way that it interrupts in animals the production of the compound that tissue produces when it is hurt, leading to the pain reaction.

"Jasmonic acid is a hormone that is made when plants are in distress. It signals the production of plant-defense compounds -- it works a little like a shot of pain, warning the plant that it is under attack. It can also volatilize and warn nearby plants, a chain reaction that's like a warning signal to other plants. This seems to particularly apply to insect attack, as the alerted plants then produce specific compounds that produce insect gastro-intestinal distress.
"It turns out that aspirin will suppress the formation of this compound (jasmonic acid), so it suppresses the warning signal, like it suppresses pain in animals," Backhaus said.

Since pain relievers affect plants’ reactions to negative stimuli in much the same way as they affect animals reactions to negative stimuli, I think it is fair to say that the reactions are based on similar things and can thus be described using the same term and we can definitely say that plants do, in fact, experience pain in the same way as animals do. So saying that the line by which we distinguish those creatures that can feel pain and those that do not lies between animals and plants doesn’t bear out to the evidence.

The obvious response to this is, what’s the point of plants feeling pain? What is the evolutionary advantage to plants developing this reaction when there is nothing they can do about it? They can’t run away when they have this experience, so those that have it and those that don’t would still reproduce at the same rate and there’s no reason for this to be any kind of advantage that is passed down to the next generation. What I would conclude is that this reaction precedes the evolutionary divergence of plants and animals, since there is no reason for plants having developed this reaction on their own. Plants just happened to keep it, even though there is no particular advantage to it, just as there is no advantage to humans having a tailbone – it just kind of hung around in the DNA.

The fact that it’s a relatively useless sensation doesn’t negate the fact that plants do, in fact, have a sensation that can be termed the equivalent of pain, so saying that it’s morally OK to slaughter plants but not animals based on the notion that animals feel pain while plants do not is not correct. Since this sensation predates both animals and plants, it is also fair to say that “lesser� organisms than either likely have this sensation too, so a response to your original question of how someone can “justify the slaughter of billions� could easily be “because I had to sneeze�.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with drawing the line of where you want to give consideration of what lives you value between animals and plants – each person can arbitrarily draw that line wherever he or she chooses, but to apply moral justification to where that line is drawn, the reasons for drawing the line there have to be defended. One person may draw the line between animals and plants, another may draw the line between animals with cute faces and animals without cute faces, another may draw the line between humans and animals. You can go with whatever feels comfortable for you, but when you say that where you have drawn the line is somehow more moral than where I have drawn the line, your line suddenly ceases to be arbitrary and the rationale behind the your placing your line where you do, as opposed to where I do, becomes important. I’ll get into the reasons of why I have drawn the line between humans and non-humans in my next post, but the rationale of drawing the line between animals and plants based on plants not being able to experience pain doesn’t hold up. Therefore saying that rights should be applied to animals and not to animals based on this criteria doesn’t hold up either.

However, let's give some serious thought into what a consciousness is:
{trim}


I agree that consciousness is nothing more than an interaction of chemicals within an organism. Animals have developed an organ called the brain within themselves to regulate these chemical interactions more efficiently, but that doesn’t mean that other organisms that use other means to regulate these chemical interactions are not conscious. If, as you and I agree, consciousness is no more than chemical interactions, then how can you say that the chemical interaction that causes plants to orient their leaves towards a light source, or bacteria to a heat source is not conscious, while the chemical interactions that happen within a brain are? How can you call one organism sentient and another not sentient when the internal processes are the same, just the way that the organism handles those processes are different?

The ability of an organism to express that sensation differs in animals and plants. That doesn’t mean that it is any more moral to kill a plant than it is to kill an animal just because we can see the animal’s expression of pain, while we cannot see the plant’s expression of pain. Both have similar chemical reactions – which is all that consciousness is – but saying that because we can hear animals cry in pain, so it’s not OK to kill them, but we can’t hear plants cry in pain, so it is OK to kill them, is similar to saying that it’s immoral to murder a person, but not immoral to hire someone else to murder a person, since in the second case we don’t see the results of our action. If you’re going to argue that one is immoral, then you have to argue that the second is immoral as well. So the distinction between giving rights to animals and not plants based on the criteria of sentience and pain does not hold up and if you’re going to be arguing for animal rights based on these criteria, you will have to be arguing for plant rights as well to avoid being a hypocrite.


The "It's natural" argument

example: Our bodies were naturally designed for eating meat.

{trim}

I agree, so what? Our bodies are also designed to rape, that doesn’t mean that rape is moral. Women’s bodies are designed to breastfeed children, that doesn’t make breastfeeding children immoral. Whether something is natural or not is irrelevant to the question or whether or not it is moral. Again, though, I would come to a different conclusion than you about what this means. Morality is based on our ability to be more than simply creatures of instinct that do what comes naturally. Humans are able to do this, while animals are not. That difference is one of the fundamental bases of why there are different sets of rights for humans and animals and some concepts, such as an inherent right to life, belong to the former group and not the latter.


A defense for the animals

Now that I've rebutted the 3 most common arguments, I shall try to make a case for the animals. And as such a magnanimous argument is being put forward, I will start with another question: Why wouldn't animals be deserving of the right to life? I think it comes down to a form of prejudiced belief. Rather, speciesism.

The reason animals are 'deserving of the right to life' is because they are sentient, and have the ability to suffer. That is to say, all of our defining attributes: the ability to reason, the ability to speak, the ability to rationalize - have no bearing on our own right to life. How can this claim be effectively explained? Let me try:

Other animals are less intelligent than us, this I do not deny. It is merely this - intelligence should not be a determining factor in a creature's intrinsic worth. If this were so, infants, elderly, autistic, retarded, and the insane would be slaughtered in seconds.

The ability to speak should not be a condemning factor in a creatures demise - else, mutes would be destroyed. Besides, I believe animals do have a basic communication amongst themselves; not only do humans not understand it, but, generally - they don?t try to.

Nor should any physical differences be thought of as a justification to murder, though this reason, I suspect, is why animals are slaughtered so unmercifully. For the same reasons some murderers may splash paint on, beat to unrecognizable pulps, or otherwise changing the features of humans before they kill them, so too is the reason why animals are slaughtered without mercy: de-humanize, un-anthropomorphize, and otherwise relieve the guilt from the killer. If something looks different from a human, it is natural to want to separate yourself from it, as much as possible. An animal is looked on as different, therefore, we separate ourselves, claiming that we aren?t truly ?animals?, and that they are simply our food.

It’s much more than animals simply being less intelligent than us and looking different than us. Rights are a subset of morality and morality developed to allow humans to interact together in groups by having a common set of standards for that group. The rights that people have came about as a way to say that if you are a member of this group then you are entitled to certain things from the other members of the group and you are required to give those same things to the other members. Having these sets of rules allowed us to exist together in more cohesive units and thus advance further than those groups who did not have those rules. There is nothing intrinsic about rights, they are simply a way for humans to coexist with each other and they work very well for that. Animals do not factor into the equation of rights at all, except as regards to property. Killing your neighbour’s pig isn’t bad because a pig died, it’s bad because destroyed you neighbour’s property.

Rights are simply a set of rules that humans use to be able to coexist with other people, therefore anything that isn’t a human has no rights whatsoever, excepting those that affect the humans the animal is around, such as property rights, etc. The right to life for those animals is non-existent. Some humans may want to keep the animals alive, for whatever reason, but that is solely based upon the discretion of the humans and what the humans’ desires are and not based upon anything to do with the animals themselves. Any suffering and pain that animals feel is only bad insomuch as it negatively affects humans that care for those animals, the fact that animals suffer is as irrelevant as the fact that plants or bacteria suffer. The animals have no right to avoid suffering and they have no right to avoid death, simply because they are not human. Rights are a way for humans to interact with other humans – that’s it. Anything that is not human does not enter into the equation.

Mutes and autistic people cannot be viewed the same way as animals, simply because they are members of the human community and animals are not. The rights afforded to a society are afforded to all members of a society and however much we may love animals, they are not members of the society and however impaired an individual human being may be, they are. Therefore comparisons between the two groups are meaningless.

Historically, rights weren?t created for the benefit of all humankind - just the wealthy elite. But, the concept of ?rights? were extended to encompass more human beings [See: Magna Carta] - like the different-colored races, women, children, and even the mentally handicapped, even though they could not understand the concept of a ?right?. I see no logical conclusion that would lead me to believe that rights should not be extended to protect members of a different species.

Discussing the development of rights by talking about the Magna Carta is like discussing the development of a fetus by talking about a teenager. Rights developed in small groups in prehistoric times when groups started living together and needed a common set of rules to do so without killing each other. Granted, those basic rights were superceded by the elites in society hundreds of thousands of years later, but by that time they were already a basic and intrinsic part of how our societies were put together. Women, children and the handicapped merit their rights by virtue of being members of the human society. Anything that is not part of the human society gets no rights.

Animals must deserve rights - at least, if humans do. What characteristics enables a human to deserve rights? Perhaps it is that humans can feel emotion. More importantly, that humans are fully capable of suffering. If we look back at our history to the concentration camps, or to the world wars, or to any part of history that is remembered for the deaths of many - we feel sympathy. Whatever the race of the oppressed may be, it is fact that, generally, we feel sympathy. If it is not a different race, or religion that makes humankind value any human more than another, then why species? If emotion, and suffering are our reasons for making humankind equal, then how can we not give rights to those that are equally capable of suffering, or feeling emotion?

How can one divide the value and take away a creature's born-with right to life? We allow the majority of man to have rights, because no matter our differences, it is because they can suffer. It is for this reason, the reason of suffering, that we afford rights to all man. Animals can suffer, so we must extend our circle of compassion to encompass all sentient creatures.

When we look back on concentration camps and the world wars, we feel sympathy because the rights of humans were violated. Six million people were slaughtered in the Holocaust and there were probably more than six million chickens slaughtered this past week – the two things are not in any way morally comparable, just as the scientists killing the humans or the rats at the beginning of my post are not in any way morally comparable. Rights work well because they allow humans to interact with each other and when human rights are violated, it affects the basic fabric upon which our societies are built. When animals “rights� are violated, it does not, so comparisons between the two are meaningless.

Perhaps the thought of giving rights to an animal may seem ludicrous, but.. on what grounds? Animals can feel pain, can love, can express feelings, can mate, can organize, can hunt, can have fun - so why should their capability of experiencing things make them less deserving of right? Or, more specifically:

How can one think an animal as worthless, and still think of the mammal: homo-sapiens as deserving of life?

Do you have a dog? Any pet owner would testify that it is "like a member of the family". That they almost consider it equal. What attributes leads them to draw this coclusion? I can honestly say that I don't know. But I do believe that when you look into a dogs eyes, see it looking back, that you will see that it is, in fact, a creature deserving of some rights.

The grounds upon which it is ludicrous are that animals are not members of the societies that rights were created to support. They are, at best, ancillary pieces of property. I love my dog, but the immoral thing about killing my dog is how it affects me, not how it affects the dog itself. My dog is important to me, so things that negatively affect my dog negatively affect me and, as a human, I have a right to oppose things that negatively affect me. On the other hand, when the Humane Society euthanizes stray dogs that no humans want, they’re not neo-Nazi genocidal maniacs, but simply doing a service to society by getting rid of unwanted things that could negatively affect it.


"Alas, what wickedness to swallow flesh into our own flesh, to fatten our greedy bodies by cramming in other bodies, to have one living creature fed by the death of another! In the midst of such wealth as earth, the best of mothers, provides, nothing forsooth satisfies you, but to behave like the Cyclopes, inflicting sorry wounds with cruel teeth! You cannot appease the hungry cravings of your wicked, gluttonous stomachs except by destroying some other life." - Pythagoras, depicted in "Metamorphoses" by Ovid.

Let's examine animal testing (or vivisection), so that I may understand how you think:

Now, what is vivisection? Performing experiments on non-consenting living creatures. This is torture - no ifs, no ands, and no buts. Whether it benefits the human race or not, is not the issue right now - what the issue is: Is it morally acceptable to torture a creature, for any reason? As I see it, the answer is no. Perhaps once you explain your position, I can argue more effectively.

Vivisectionists perform experiments on creatures to find cures, treatments, and antidotes to diseases/ailments that infect humanity. The life of a few hundred chimpanzee's, or a few hundred pigs, go towards the aim of helping humankind. This sounds like a noble deed - a small group sacrificing themselves for all of humanity, however I do not think it so. The "noble hero's" are non-consenting - they are tortured, and drugged to find out what works and what doesn't. Perhaps, if the creatures would agree to it, it would be different, but since the animals don't have an understanding of what these "scientists' are going to attempt, they can't consent.



"At the moment our human world is based on the suffering and destruction of millions of non-humans. To perceive this and to do something to change it in personal and public ways is to undergo a change of perception akin to a religious conversion. Nothing can ever be seen in quite the same way again because once you have admitted the terror and pain of other species you will, unless you resist conversion, be always aware of the endless permutations of suffering that support our society." - Arthur Conan Doyle



[note to Tom Sawyer: Perhaps this is too short, but I will try to write more, as I come to understand your position]

Animals used in experiments are not noble heroes, nor are they making any kind of sacrifice, as the term is generally understood, nor are they beings that can, or should be able to, give consent. They are amoral pieces of property that are being used to promote the welfare of the creatures that matter from a moral perspective, namely humans, because humans are the ones who invented morality and we did so for our own sake. If torturing those pieces of property helps to benefit the lives of humans, then it is an acceptable use of that property. If killing those pieces of property helps benefit the lives of humans, then it is an acceptable use of that property.

Morality, and the rights that are part of it, are human inventions that allow us to coexist with other humans. Anything that is not human does not enter into the equation of what is or is not moral behaviour and has no rights except as the actions towards those creatures impact humans. If sentience or the ability to feel pain is the criteria, then plants and bacteria must be included in what deserves to be protected and any concept of “animal rights� that arbitrarily excludes those creatures is fairly hypocritical and not based on the available evidence. Animals do not have a right to life for the simple reason that they are non-human and, by definition, anyting that is not human actually has no rights at all.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

DogmaticTrip,

Please note that the deadline to post your next statement has passed. However, as the rules permit, you've been granted a 3 day grace period, extending the deadline to Nov. 6.

Thank you for your consideration,

- NS, FD Moderator

[DogmaticTrip]

[deadline passed? My apologies, I had somehow forgotten about my having to post - and I remembered sometime today ((and I thought I still had until midnight.))]

Your analogy

As an example, consider the following three situations:

1) Scientist A has an orphan child he adopted (I’ll use orphans in my example, so there’s no biological connection to complicate things). He loves this child and the child gives his life joy. The child develops an incurable disease and Scientist A wants to discover a cure for this disease to save the life of his adopted child. In working to find this cure, he kills 1000 rats in medical experiments.

2) Scientist B has a pet rat. He loves this rat and the rat gives his life joy. The rat develops an incurable disease and Scientist B wants to discover a cure for this disease to save the life of his pet. In working to find this cure, he kills 1000 orphaned children in medical experiments.

3) Scientist C has an orphaned white child he adopted. He loves this white child and the white child gives his life joy. The white child develops an incurable disease and Scientist C wants to discover a cure for this disease to save the life of his adopted white child. In working to find this cure, he kills 1000 orphaned black children in medical experiments.

Now, are these three situations morally equivalent? If you take the position that animals deserve the same right to life as humans, then all three are equally immoral, since all sacrifice 1000 lives in an attempt to save the life of one. However, if the lives of 1000 rats are unimportant as compared to the life of one human – meaning that the rats do not have the same right to life as the human does – then there is nothing morally wrong about Scientist A’s actions, since sacrificing all those animals to save a single human is a morally justifiable action. Similarly, preserving the lives of those 1000 rats at the cost of the life of one human would be morally indefensible. This is the position that I take.

I understand what you're saying, however, this is an example of the Straw Man fallacy. I never claimed that they were morally equivalent, nor did I say that animals deserve the same right to life as humans - I simply asked why they do not. The topic question is, "do animals deserve moral consideration?", not "do animals deserve equal moral consideration?". Therefore, I find the whole analogy to be irrelevant.

Besides the fallacious argument, I would still claim that all three are immoral. Not equally immoral, but immoral all the same. It comes down to 1,000 lives being ended, without any guarantee of the mammal's survival. There are many alternatives to animal-testing, and many would question the fact that animal-testing is effectual. As will I.

Of course different species will react differently to different drugs. It is true that humans and chimpanzee's are remarkably similar; this matters not, because as similar as we are, we are just as different. The differences between a human and a rat hardly need to be explained.

“The results obtained from animals can in no way be transferred to man. Why, then, does vivisection continue ? Primarily because of mental and cultural backwardness. Vivisection is fallacious, useless, expensive, and, above all, cruel.� - Gianni Tamino, University of Padua and Deputy of the Italian Parliament.

In essence, the reason vivisection goes on, is because of negligence, laziness, and greed. It is very fast to test a drug on a range of animals, and then to present it in a way that implies it's safety, and then to get it on the market selling. When a person who gets the drug gets sick - they can sue. But the animal experimentation becomes the drugs main defense - it shows the labor hours, and all the steps it took to ensure its safety. Animal-testing will painfully destroy animal-lives without any guarantee of saving human-kind.

"There are, in fact, only two categories of doctors and scientists who are not opposed to vivisection: those who don't know enough about it, and those who make money from it." - Dr. Werner Hartinger, A German surgeon




Speciesism vs. Racism

If specieism and racism were morally equivalent, then the two would be equally bad, but since the life of a rat is worth less than the life of a human, then slaughtering 1000 humans to save one rat is the most immoral action here, so saying that specieism is as inherently cruel as racism does not stand up to reason.

In my opinion, it is the most immoral action, however, that makes not one of your examples morally permissible. Also, I'd like to add that you have not shown me one reason that the life of one thousand rats is worth less than the life of a human. (Now make no Straw Man here: I'm not claiming you are right or wrong, just that I don't see where you prove you are right.)

Animals killing animals

Looking through your logic, though, I would come to a different conclusion than you based on your premises. You say that it is OK for animals to kill each other, since they are only animals and not OK for us to kill animals since we are human.

This is coming close to another Straw Man. I never said that it is okay for an animal to kill another animal for the reason that it is an animal. If that is the impression you got, however, I apologize. The reason I find it permissible is because most animals kill out of necessity, while humans kill for no necessary medium. In every way that we use animals, there are other options available.

And about my hypocrisy accusation - I simply mean this: if an animal is uncompassionate and irrational, does this mean a human should be? The very fact that animals eat each other is irrelevant.

What underlies that argument is the fact that different moral standards have to be applied to humans than are applied to animals. Since different moral standards have to be applied to the two groups, you cannot then say that the two groups are morally equivalent.

Alright. However, I never said they were morally equivalent, I asked why they should not be. Keep in mind that the underlying theme is if they deserve moral consideration. I feel you sufficiently answered my question quite awhile ago.

Just as you argue that humans should not lower ourselves to the level of animals to justify our actions towards them, I similarly argue that animals should not be raised to the level of humans when determining whether our actions towards them are just. Since there is a moral distinction between humans and non-humans, saying that non-humans are morally equivalent and deserving of the same rights afforded to humans is incorrect.

I agree that there is a moral distinction, albeit a slight one, however you insist on using this Straw Man's fallacy. If an animal was deserving of the same rights afforded to a human, that would be insanity. We can't expect bears to be voting, or deer to have the freedom of speech. However, I argue that they are deserving of the right to life, as any sentient being must be.


Hunter/Gatherer societies

Also, the idea that hunter-gatherer societies don’t destroy ecosystems doesn’t hold up to the facts. Read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. He gives some good evidence that the mass extinctions of native creatures in both the Americas and Australia coincided almost exactly with the arrival of primitive hunter-gatherer human tribes to those areas.

I will concede the point that hunter-gatherer societies do, in fact, damage ecosystems - but, as you agreed, we (humans) do it at an excessively higher rate.



Plants and Pain and Sentience


--- the rationale of drawing the line between animals and plants based on plants not being able to experience pain doesn’t hold up. Therefore saying that rights should be applied to animals and not to animals based on this criteria doesn’t hold up either.

I believe you have missed a majority of the argument here. You see, pain was only half the criterion - the other half was sentience, (or consciousness, rather). I must admit, I do not know enough on the subject to argue your claims on the plants receiving noxious stimuli - and I wouldn't even try to argue the fact that they, at times, react to their environment. However, this is not an indication of sentience, or consciousness.

Therefore, I would still say that a plant does not meet the criteria, therefore it is not deserving of moral consideration.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DogmaticTrip
However, let's give some serious thought into what a consciousness is:
{trim}



If, as you and I agree, consciousness is no more than chemical interactions, then how can you say that the chemical interaction that causes plants to orient their leaves towards a light source, or bacteria to a heat source is not conscious, while the chemical interactions that happen within a brain are? How can you call one organism sentient and another not sentient when the internal processes are the same

I never said that consciousness is 'no more than chemical interactions' - I merely claimed that electro-chemical processes in the brain PRODUCE consciousness. But.. you're suggesting the internal processes between an animal and a plant are the same?




Originally Posted by DogmaticTrip
A defense for the animals

Now that I've rebutted the 3 most common arguments, I shall try to make a case for the animals. And as such a magnanimous argument is being put forward, I will start with another question: Why wouldn't animals be deserving of the right to life? I think it comes down to a form of prejudiced belief. Rather, speciesism.

The reason animals are 'deserving of the right to life' is because they are sentient, and have the ability to suffer. That is to say, all of our defining attributes: the ability to reason, the ability to speak, the ability to rationalize - have no bearing on our own right to life. How can this claim be effectively explained? Let me try:

Other animals are less intelligent than us, this I do not deny. It is merely this - intelligence should not be a determining factor in a creature's intrinsic worth. If this were so, infants, elderly, autistic, retarded, and the insane would be slaughtered in seconds.

The ability to speak should not be a condemning factor in a creatures demise - else, mutes would be destroyed. Besides, I believe animals do have a basic communication amongst themselves; not only do humans not understand it, but, generally - they don't try to.

Nor should any physical differences be thought of as a justification to murder, though this reason, I suspect, is why animals are slaughtered so unmercifully. For the same reasons some murderers may splash paint on, beat to unrecognizable pulps, or otherwise changing the features of humans before they kill them, so too is the reason why animals are slaughtered without mercy: de-humanize, un-anthropomorphize, and otherwise relieve the guilt from the killer. If something looks different from a human, it is natural to want to separate yourself from it, as much as possible. An animal is looked on as different, therefore, we separate ourselves, claiming that we aren't truly ?animals?, and that they are simply our food.



There is nothing intrinsic about rights, they are simply a way for humans to coexist with each other

Did the white man not coexist with other white men, in a way that was appealing to them? Has slavery not existed for thousands upon thousands of years, while working quite nicely for the oppressor? Obviously, just because we do not grant rights to a certain group, does not mean that they have no reason to be granted these rights. The abolitionists weren't fighting for black liberation because they wanted to 'coexist' with each other - rather, because the black man was (once again) a living, breathing, feeling creature.


Rights are a way for humans to interact with other humans – that’s it. Anything that is not human does not enter into the equation.

Really? I had thought that rights were a sort of privileges one has through the conformability to morality. And, morality is very loosely defined by me, as a system of determining right or wrong conduct.

And if we go by your definition of rights, the automatic response is that it has not always been so.

Mutes and autistic people cannot be viewed the same way as animals, simply because they are members of the human community and animals are not.

(i.e. see: speciesism)


Anything that is not part of the human society gets no rights.

But why?


Quote:
Originally Posted by DogmaticTrip
Perhaps the thought of giving rights to an animal may seem ludicrous, but.. on what grounds? Animals can feel pain, can love, can express feelings, can mate, can organize, can hunt, can have fun - so why should their capability of experiencing things make them less deserving of right? Or, more specifically:

How can one think an animal as worthless, and still think of the mammal: homo-sapiens as deserving of life?

Do you have a dog? Any pet owner would testify that it is "like a member of the family". That they almost consider it equal. What attributes leads them to draw this conclusion? I can honestly say that I don't know. But I do believe that when you look into a dogs eyes, see it looking back, that you will see that it is, in fact, a creature deserving of some rights.



The grounds upon which it is ludicrous are that animals are not members of the societies that rights were created to support. They are, at best, ancillary pieces of property. I love my dog, but the immoral thing about killing my dog is how it affects me, not how it affects the dog itself.

Animals do not have a right to life for the simple reason that they are non-human and, by definition, anyting that is not human actually has no rights at all.

Rights were created to support humans? Some perhaps, not all. But, I have a question: Why is your dog important to you, and how can you love property? And also, by whose definition does it say that, 'anything not human has no rights at all'? My definition (described above) differs from yours. I see the fact that they have a different number of legs as irrelevant.




[note: whole post hurriedly written this night, so forgive the typo's.]

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Tom Sawyer,

Please note that the deadline to post your next statement has passed. However, as the rules permit, you've been granted a grace period, extending the deadline to Nov. 17.

Thank you for your consideration,

- NS, FD Moderator

[Tom Sawyer]

I apologize for being late with this post. For some reason, I thought I had the upcoming weekend to complete it. To stick with the format of the debate, I'll respond to what DT said in the closing statement and use this post to argue the affirmative case for why animals are not deserving of the right to life and other moral considerations.

The first question to be asked in regards to whether animals should be granted rights, specifically the right to life, that humans have, is what exactly is a "right"? For me, rights are a subset of morality and morality is simply a set of rules that societies have developed so that the different people in those societies can co-exist and flourish. For instance, if the members of a society have agreed that they shouldn't steal each other's property, then each person in that society can spend less time guarding their property and more time engaging in other pursuits, since they can view their property as relatively secure. Punishments are also added in when that rule is violated, to serve as a deterrent to those who do not freely choose to follow societies rules. So society encourages its members to conform to these moral rules, either through raising them to believe that these rules are the proper way to act or punishing them when they break the rules.

What distinguishes "rights" from other moral rules is the level of obligation that members of society have to follow those rules. If someone has a certain right, such as the right to life, then every other member of society is morally obliged to respect this right and not take their life from them. A right is just like every other moral rule, it's just viewed as more important than the rest, so the members of the society are more obliged to follow it than any other moral rule. As an example, take the moral rules against unwanted sexual activity. With some of these, such as rape, everyone in society has an obligation not to break that rule, so it can be said that people in our society have a right not to be raped. Other rules under this category, such as "don't stare at the breasts of women you see on the street" can be seen as a morally inappropriate thing to do, but not at the same level as rape. It is more frowned upon and discouraged, rather than actively banned, and members of society don't have an obligation to conform to this rule, it's more that it's just suggested they do it. Different members of society may have different reactions to men who ogle women passing by - some may view it as hideous and despicable and some others may view it as a fun way to spend an afternoon. There is not enough of a consensus, however, to raise this moral rule to the level of an obligation and to say that woman in our society have a "right" not to have their breasts stared at when they walk down the street.

So, to say that animals have a "right" to life, is to say that people have an obligation to preserve the lives of animals. It's not suggested as a decent, moral thing to do, but something that people have to do in order to be a member of the society. Rapists, murderers and fishermen have all broken the most important agreements by which our society operates and have to be removed from that society and placed in prison. Personally, I think that's silly and I don't think that animals are anywhere near the moral equivalent of humans and therefore humans don't have any kind of obligation to protect or preserve the lives of animals the same way that we have an obligation to protect and preserve the lives of other humans. Some people think that animals do deserve the same respect given to humans and are quite free to avoid eating meat and protesting medical experiments. Others think that the fact that beef is tasty is reason enough to kill a cow and if a thousand rats have to die painfully to save the life of one human, that's a fair trade. There is not enough of a consensus for the former, though, for our society to say that the latter are violating the "rights" of the animals.

The question then becomes why? What is it that separates humans from animals and grants the former rights, such as the right to life, and denies them to the latter? I believe that the answer is twofold: first, humans are moral agents and animals are not and second, humans are members of the society and animals are not.

By "moral agent", I mean a creature capable of acting with reference to right and wrong. Humans can do this and animals cannot. By acting with reference to right and wrong, I mean more than a simple Pavlovian response to stimuli, which animals are obviously able to do, but actually being able to judge the consequence of their actions and then act or not act based on the realization of the moral implications of what they're doing. Humans are capable of this type of thought process, so we can be termed moral agents; I have never seen any evidence to suggest that animals are similarly capable, so the term doesn't apply to them.

That's not to say that animals are incapable of thought and complex actions, though. Right now, I'm taking my dog to agility training classes, where she does all the jumping and using see-saws and a whole bunch of other apparatus and she can progress quickly from not knowing what any of these things are to being able to run through an entire course with lots of complicated, distinct actions required for this. However, the training to have her do that is simple Pavlovian rewards and punishments when she does something right or wrong, there's nothing more advanced going on in her brain because her brain is simply not wired to process more advanced thoughts. That type of advanced thought is what is required for a creature to become a moral agent and if you're not a moral agent, then morality quite simply doesn't apply to you. If a man attacks a child, it's quite fair to say that that man is acting immorally; if a dog attacks a child, saying that dog is immoral would be a nonsensical statement. The dog isn't a moral agent, so you can't use moral terms to describe its behavior. The inverse is true as well in that moral terms can't be used to describe behavior towards an animal any more than they can be used to describe behavior towards a tree.

A main objection to this type of argument is that if animals aren't deserving of moral considerations due to their inability to distinguish right and wrong, why doesn't the same apply to humans that cannot, such as the mentally retarded, young children, etc? The answer is quite simply that society has decided to grant full moral consideration to humans, regardless of their condition, and has not decided to give full moral consideration to animals. We have decided not to draw a line between humans that are worthy of moral consideration and those that are not. There are some who argue that such a line should be drawn, but at present there is enough of a consensus against drawing this line that the moral consideration given to humans who are moral agents is extended to those who are not. Since morality is really just an agreed upon set of rules for behaviour, that's all that is needed for people who aren't moral agents to have the same rights as those who are.

That brings me to the second reason why animals don't get the same rights as humans is because animals aren't members of society. Moral considerations, including rights, are a system of rules for members of a society to use in order to coexist in a group. If a creature isn't a member of that group, then the rules of that society don't apply to them. This does not mean that you can do whatever you want to people who aren't in your society, because that would run afoul of the rule that morality applies to moral agents, which people from other societies are, but when it comes to non-moral agents (such as animals), then there is no rationale for extending moral considerations, including rights, to those creatures. Morality is really no more than a social contract, so creatures that are not members of society are not part of that contract. We don't apply moral rules to them when they act, and our actions towards them are not governed by moral rules.

There is an exception to this, namely that moral rules apply when actions towards animals affect humans, since those humans are moral agents and members of the society, so things that affect them are due moral consideration, regardless of whether the action is directly towards them or not. The most obvious example of this is pets. If someone does something to my pet, it affects me and therefore the moral repercussions of the action must be taken into account. If someone goes out and shoots a wild pig, there are no moral implications to this action. On the other hand, if a person has a pet pig and someone shoots it, this is an immoral act - not because the domestic pig has any more rights or is any more deserving of moral consideration than the wild pig, but because the person who owns the pig is adversely affected when his pet is shot, so there is a moral consideration here. Pets fall under property rights (that's rights in a legal sense, not in a moral sense) and shooting the pet pig destroys its owner's property, and one of the moral rules of our society is that you don't destroy another person's property and the shooter would have violated this rule.

Mainly because of these two points, I don't feel that animals are deserving of the moral considerations, specifically the right to life, which humans enjoy. They are not moral agents, so morality isn't considered when judging their actions or any actions taken towards them and they aren't members of society, so the social contract that makes up moral behavior doesn't apply to them. Really, the only way that morality is relevant where animals are concerned is how humans are affected by actions towards those animals. For some examples of how these apply, I'll talk about the food industry, medical experimentation and cute vs. ugly animals.

The Food Industry

This industry is probably the most widely criticized area by animal rights activists. The images of thousands of innocent creatures forced to exist in horrific conditions and then dragged out and slaughtered to feed mankind's greed and gluttony are some of the most powerful tools that they have to advance their cause. But the real question is, does the suffering and death of these animals matter and should we work to avoid it? My answer is no.

The point of these animals' existence is to feed us - that's it. It's what they were born for, it's what they live for and it's what they die for. Domesticated cattle and chicken are not natural creatures, they are biological machines that have been designed (bred) to give us the maximum amount of sustenance for the minimum amount of effort. It is more efficient to keep them cooped up in factory farms and fed ground up remains of previous generations and thus they serve their function better when that is done. The industry is cheaper and easier to handle this way, meaning that more people can be fed for less effort, freeing up time and effort to allow people to engage in other pursuits besides toiling to produce enough food to eat. Having the food industry as it is now allows us to have a cheap, readily available source of food with only a small fraction of the population involved in procuring it. It, of course, could be changed and there are many areas that try to treat the animals more humanely, such as free-range chickens, etc, but those are more expensive and less efficient. That means that more resources would be required to get the same amount of food, so the only way to have the animals be treated more humanely is to have the human consumer suffer as a result.

Now, this is a free society, so if some people want to choose to expend that extra money and effort to have food that is treated humanely, more power to them, they're quite welcome to make that choice. However, those that do not want to make that choice have no obligation to do so and can reap the benefits of the more efficient means of production that are available. Since animals do not have any moral rights and humans do, the idea that humans should have to suffer, in terms of having to pay more for food and more humans having to work in the food industry, in order to ease the suffering of animals does not carry any weight. Domesticated animals are biological machines that we have engineered to produce food in the most efficient way possible. They are not moral agents, nor are they members of society, so there is not a valid moral argument why humans should be put out so that they can have better lives.

Now, this argument could be rendered moot with the response that we shouldn't be eating meat at all, regardless of how humanely the animal is treated before we slaughter it. My answer to that is simply that meat tastes good and I want to eat it. Since the creature that I get the meat from doesn't get any kind of moral consideration, the fact that I want to do it is reason in and of itself to do it and I don't need any more rationale than that.


Medical Experimentation

This area is another one where animal rights activists have a lot of problems. The basic moral question that surrounds this industry is whether or not animals should suffer and die so that humans can suffer less and live longer in their place. My answer to this is yes, they should.

As I've said above, animals are not the moral equivalent of humans, or even deserving of the most basic considerations of moral behavior. The fact that they suffer and die does not matter. What does matter is that there is the potential to save human lives if these animals are used, so the moral thing to do is to use them. Humans are moral agents and members of society, so anything that can be done to help us is a morally correct thing and since animals are neither of those, any adverse affect on them as a result is not something that needs to be factored into a moral equation. Not using animals to find new drugs and techniques to help humans is, in fact, an immoral thing to do, since that will result in humans, who merit moral consideration, suffering and dying in order to preserve the lives of animals, which do not merit this.

These animals are no more than tools that the researchers use to best perform their work. If, when developing a new drug, a researcher decided to use an old DOS machine to crunch the numbers when the newest supercomputers were available to him, it would slow down the results and perhaps have the researcher miss some potential adverse side effects that the older computer wasn't able to predict. If the drug had life-saving properties, using the old machine instead of the new one would result in people who could benefit from it unnecessarily dying because of the researcher not using the most efficient tools available. It's the same thing with animal experimentation. If researchers choose not to use animals to develop their drugs, it's possible that they could still end up getting the same results, but those results would come about slower and there'd be a far larger chance of adverse side effects affecting the people who take the drugs, since they weren't fully tested on subjects that the researchers could overdose and dissect to get a fuller understanding of the drug's properties and side effects. So in order to preserve the lives of the animals, the researchers would end up allowing the unnecessary death and suffering of humans, either through a delay in their getting the drugs or an adverse side effect that the researchers weren't able to properly predict.

The use of these animals in research saves the lives of humans. That is a noble goal and a worthy one to pursue, since humans are moral agents and members of society and thus worthy of moral consideration and respect. Not only are animals not worthy of this, but the attempt to preserve their lives and stop using them in medical experiments will cause the unnecessary death and suffering of humans, so it's not just that these animals aren't deserving of the right to life, but it would be actively immoral to stop using them in medical experiments to preserve the lives of humans.

Cute vs. Ugly Animals

One of my main problems with animal rights activists is that they'll curse a man who eats a steak, but have no problem calling an exterminator if they find termites in their wall. Despite all the cries of "a life is a life is a life", there aren't very many volunteers at the Save the Cockroach Foundation. To me, this smacks of blatant hypocrisy. But it also goes back to a point I was making above when talking about pets, namely that an animal's life is given value in relation to how much humans are affected by that animal.

Cute animals are easier to argue in favour of protections for since humans are able to relate to them better. A bunny rabbit may remind someone of a stuffed animal they had as a child and she'll think how nasty the evil scientists are who want to inject cancer cells into the little bunny. At the same time, injecting cancer cells into rats gets less of a negative reaction from society as a whole. Animal rights groups know this, which is why you'll rarely see a cockroach on a billboard supporting animal equality. Documentaries about how great animals' lives are when they're free are done in bright, wide-open spaces and not in swamps infested with mosquitoes and leeches, although those creatures should be as deserving of life and protection as the cute ones who make it onto the videos.

If it's true that "a life is a life is a life", then mosquitoes should be allowed to eat their fill without getting swatted and if cockroaches make it into your pantry, you should buy more food so that they don't get hungry. When animal rights activists choose to only protect certain species and ignore others, all they're proving is that the lives of the animals themselves aren't important, all that's important is how the humans feel about those animals. In other words it is, again, the humans that matter and the animals are only important in what they can do for us. Whether it's providing us with a source of food or providing us with a sense of purpose, their only worth is measured by how humans are affected by them, not by anything in and of themselves.


So to sum up, animals are not moral agents, in the sense that their brains don't process right and wrong in the sense that they can be determined to be responsible for the moral considerations of the outcome of their actions and are therefore also not due moral consideration themselves - the concept of morality simply doesn't apply to them. Additionally, since morality is really nothing more than a social contract and animals aren't part of society, except as property of humans, they are not part of that contract and it doesn't apply to them.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

DogmaticTrip,

I'd like to remind you that the deadline to post your next statement has passed. The rules permit a grace period, however, extending the deadline to Nov. 30.

Thank you for your consideration,

- NS, FD Moderator

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

The grace period has expired for DogmaticTrip to submit his next statement. Unfortunately, I must declare this debate a forfeit. Tom Sawyer, if he wishes to, may submit a concluding statement for the final word. After that, this thread will be closed.

- NS, FD Moderator

Edit: Tom Sawyer has declined to submit a final statement. This thread will now be closed