Are animals deserving of moral consideration/the right to life?

[DogmaticTrip]

I have been lurking around this site, particularly around the debating threads, and I'm not quite sure if I'm "ready" for a formal debate, but if you will have me, I'd like to try.

I propose a debate on animals, and whether they are deserving of moral consideration/the right to life.

I suggest:

Are animals deserving of the right to life?

Debating for: Myself
Debating against: You

The debate may cover any subject-matter, related to the topic.

I propose 2 sets of 3 rounds, along with concluding statements on both sides.

Set 1:
1. You state your best argument against, I rebut.
2. You defend, I rebut.
3. You conclude your point
<- Or vice versa
Set 2:
1. I state my best argument against, you rebut.
2. I defend, you rebut.
3. I conclude my point

Conclusions:
1. You conclude, I conclude.

I propose the maximum length of all posts be no more than 5,000 words (which is a lot) - and also that we have no more than 10 days to reply.

Quotes and references may be used no more than 50% of the time.

The starting date will depend on whether you accept the debate, and when you are available.

All else that I ask is that it is kept civil.

If you agree, let me know soon.

Thanks.


Josh

[DogmaticTrip]

1. I state my best argument against, you rebut.




Errr.. my best argument for*.

[abe smith]

IMO. I say, : as no-one is ultimately ( = "gawd") In-Charge of dispensing rewards & punishments here in this particular & local cosmos..., therefore NO entity, neither ourselves, nor others e.g. including *other* "animals", DESERVES a damn thing. "Deserve" has nothing to do w/ it.

Is your OP question heading-towards some "moral" assertion?

[DogmaticTrip]

IMO. I say, : as no-one is ultimately ( = "gawd") In-Charge of dispensing rewards & punishments here in this particular & local cosmos..., therefore NO entity, neither ourselves, nor others e.g. including *other* "animals", DESERVES a damn thing. "Deserve" has nothing to do w/ it.

Okay, perhaps I wasn't clear with it. It is my proposal that, on Earth, there is no good reason that animals are not given the right to life, - rather, that the systematic slaughter of non-humans. is both morally and ethically wrong. As is the exploitation of non-humans.(i.e. Meat-eating, hunting, vivisection, fur farming, et cetera, et cetera.)

Is your OP question heading-towards some "moral" assertion?

You could put it that way.

[Jinksy]

I'd suggest being a bit more specific about which animals you mean. Do bacteria/plankton/insects/worms etc. count?

[DogmaticTrip]

I'd suggest being a bit more specific about which animals you mean. Do bacteria/plankton/insects/worms etc. count?

I mean any being who is sentient, - any being that can feel pain, has personal interest, and can feel basic emotions.

Where do you draw the line? There was an animal rights activist who would move a worm from hot cement to cool grass. I tend to avoid hurting insects, but it is inevitable. I am primarily discussing the rights of mammalian creatures, - though I would defend most cold-blooded animals right to life, as well.

[DogmaticTrip]

Actually, any nonhuman with a central nervous system, really.

[Dru2k]

dilemma: carnivorous animals. if it doesn't eat another animal it will die.

which animal do you save? predator or prey?

[DogmaticTrip]

dilemma: carnivorous animals. if it doesn't eat another animal it will die.

which animal do you save? predator or prey?

I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you mean - and it might be because I'm terribly unclear. When I refer to Animal rights - I mean in correlation to humans - (the meat industry, vivisection, dairy farming, fur farming, factory farming, et cetera, et cetera.)

Animals need to eat meat, to survive. I'm not denying this - or speaking out against it. Humans, however, are omnivores - and there are some milions of people proving that you can live healthy (healthiER), on a vegan diet.

There is no excuse to kill animals for sustenance, 'medical experiments', or for human vanity (fur).

Especially when the earth is so good as to give us food that is/was not/never sentient.

Meat is murder, plain and simple. But it doesn't look like anyone's willing to debate it.

[Dru2k]

Animals need to eat meat, to survive. I'm not denying this - or speaking out against it. Humans, however, are omnivores - and there are some milions of people proving that you can live healthy (healthiER), on a vegan diet.

their are animals that are omnivores that could live just fine eating only vegetation. for example, bears, emus, etc. do you think it would be our duty to stop animals from hunting other animals when they don't necesarily need to eat other animals to survive.

There is no excuse to kill animals for sustenance, 'medical experiments', or for human vanity (fur).

i guess if we didn't perform medical experiments on animals for the advancement of disease control, do you propose we experiment on human beings?

maybe a better debate would be, should we value animal life equal to human life?

Especially when the earth is so good as to give us food that is/was not/never sentient.

the earth has given us everything not just animals than. perhaps we should stop all production of products using materials provided from the earth. stop cutting trees, driving cars, using computers, etc. do you think we should all live like animals and give up our material possessions because we are using the earth's resources? because when we take from the earth, we are killing animals that we don't even eat (foresting).

[DougP]

Im on the same side as the OP, otherwise I would join this particular debate.

[DogmaticTrip]

their are animals that are omnivores that could live just fine eating only vegetation. for example, bears, emus, etc. do you think it would be our duty to stop animals from hunting other animals when they don't necesarily need to eat other animals to survive.

No.


i guess if we didn't perform medical experiments on animals for the advancement of disease control, do you propose we experiment on human beings?

maybe a better debate would be, should we value animal life equal to human life?

No, I propose nothing of the sort (though it certainly makes more sense)

I would be willing to debate that, if you would.

(Being short-answered, so that I don't give my position, and arguments away).

the earth has given us everything not just animals than. perhaps we should stop all production of products using materials provided from the earth. stop cutting trees, driving cars, using computers, etc. do you think we should all live like animals and give up our material possessions because we are using the earth's resources? because when we take from the earth, we are killing animals that we don't even eat (foresting).

No, I don't think that. I think we should live the best we can, harming as little as we can.

But, I'd rather debate than argue in the proposals.

And you said you agree?

[DogmaticTrip]

Ah, different person said they'd agree - sorry, was not paying close attention.

[Tom Sawyer]

I'd be kind of interested in this debate.

My general slant would be that rights - and other aspects of morality - are things that humans developed to be able to interact with each other. These apply to animals only in the sense that we have a use for these animals.

So, when animals are used by us as a food source, there's nothing wrong with us slaughtering them for food, since they have no inherent right not to be killed for food. Those that we use as companions have more "rights", since we humans have a different use for them. For instance, if someone were to kill a pig at a slaughterhouse, there's no real problem; if someone were to kill a pig that someone has as a pet, that's a problem. The animal is the same, but the human's use of that animal is different and therefore it gets different rights.

I don't have any problem with the furrier industry and see nothing wrong with killing animals for their fur, skin, tusks, etc. If that's the use we have for those animals, then it's fine to do so.

If you're interested in a debate along these lines, I'd be happy to participate.

[Corvidae72]

I'd be willing to debate it also. But I'd want the topic to be tightened up a little; something like "Resolved; animals have rights equivalent to those of humans"

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

I'd be kind of interested in this debate.

That's fine, but it should be noted that you walked away from your debate (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=57909) with winstonjen last year. Can we be assured that this time you'll stay with this one?

I'd be willing to debate it also. But I'd want the topic to be tightened up a little; something like "Resolved; animals have rights equivalent to those of humans"

I'm afraid that DT can only take on one challenger at a time. If DT's still interested in debating, then (s)he will have to make a choice between you and Tom (if neither of you steps down).

- NS, FD Moderator

[Tom Sawyer]

That's fine, but it should be noted that you walked away from your debate (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=57909) with winstonjen last year. Can we be assured that this time you'll stay with this one?

- NS, FD Moderator

This is true. However, I was working longer hours and travelling a lot last year, so I didn't have the time for it. This is no longer the case and I'm not nearly so busy as I was.

[DogmaticTrip]

Ah, alright-y.

Well, I'd be overjoyed to debate it with either one of you. As Tom Sawyer happened to reply first, I will ask him to debate it with me, under the aforementioned parameters. If any changes are required, feel free to suggest new ones.

However, if Tom wishes to step down, then Cor is acceptable as well. (Especially as he is fairly new here as well - Tom, my debating skills might not be quite as fine as yours.)


Thanks,

Josh

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Here is a summary of the parameters so far. Feel free to suggest amendments. I had one concern regarding dividing the debate into 2 sets. When you argue for and defend your respective positions, the arguments may not be mutually exclusive, creating a lot of repetition. The debate might work better in the standard format.

1) The topic of the debate.

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

2) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.

DogmaticTrip will take the affirmative and Tom Sawyer will oppose.

3) The scope of the debate.

The debate will cover ethical questions regarding animal rights such as the right to life. The debate can explore things such as animal medical research, the fur industry, animal products, use animals for food, entertainment, and other issues.

4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds.

7 rounds.

5) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.

In turns (see #10)

6) The maximum length of each statement.

5000 words.

7) The maximum duration between statements.

10 days.

8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed.

Quotes and references may be used no more than 50% of the statement.

9) The starting date of the debate.

?????

10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe.

The debate will be divided into 2 sets in the following way:

Set 1:
Round 1: Tom Sawyer argues his position; DogmaticTrip rebuts.
Round 2: Tom Sawyer defends; DogmaticTrip rebuts.
Round 3: Tom Sawyer concludes.

Set 2:
Round 1: DogmaticTrip argues his/her position; Tom Sawyer rebuts.
Round 2: DogmaticTrip defends; Tom Sawyer rebuts.
Round 3: DogmaticTrip concludes.

Conclusion: Tom Sawyer concludes; DogmaticTrip concludes.

[DogmaticTrip]

I'm okay with the parameters, but as I am less experienced I will agree with whatever Tom, or NS proposes.

[DogmaticTrip]

About the two sets-

Feel free to change that, then. I was going for simplicity.

[Tom Sawyer]

DogmaticTrip & NightShade,

I'm fine with the debate format. I can do my Round 1 post this weekend if it's OK to start that soon, or if DT wants to wait a bit, I'm fine with that too.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Here's just a summary again. If DT agrees with the start date and other parameters then we will make it official.

------------------

1) The topic of the debate.

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

2) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.

Tom Sawyer will affirm the negative position for animal rights while DogmaticTrip will take the positive position.

3) The scope of the debate.

The debate will cover ethical questions regarding animal rights such as the right to life. The debate can explore things such as animal medical research, the fur industry, animal products, use animals for food, entertainment, and other issues.

4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds.

See #10

5) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.

In turns (see #10)

6) The maximum length of each statement.

5000 words.

7) The maximum duration between statements.

10 days.

8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed.

Quotes and references may be used no more than 50% of the statement.

9) The starting date of the debate.

Oct. 9.

10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe.

The debate will be divided into 2 sets in the following way:

Set 1:
Round 1: DogmaticTrip argues his/her position; Tom Sawyer rebuts.
Round 2: DogmaticTrip defends; Tom Sawyer rebuts.
Round 3: DogmaticTrip concludes.

Set 2:
Round 1: Tom Sawyer argues his position; DogmaticTrip rebuts.
Round 2: Tom Sawyer defends; DogmaticTrip rebuts.
Round 3: Tom Sawyer concludes.

Conclusion: DogmaticTrip concludes; Tom Sawyer concludes.

[DogmaticTrip]

I am agreed; always ready to debate for those that can't debate for themselves.

October ninth it is!

The debate will cover ethical questions regarding animal rights such as the right to life. The debate can explore things such as animal medical research, the fur industry, animal products, use animals for food, entertainment, and other issues.

May explore, but not confined to, correct?

(Just underlined the opening sentence.. for no apparent reason)

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

The debate will cover ethical questions regarding animal rights such as the right to life. The debate can explore things such as animal medical research, the fur industry, animal products, use animals for food, entertainment, and other issues.

I was only citing examples. I didn't intend it mean that it needs to be confined to those issues.

Also, keep in mind that the opening statement can be posted on Oct. 9 or within 10 days after that date.

We'll set up the debate thread on Oct. 9. This thread will now be closed.

Jason