This topic is going to go back to the previous topic extracting old cases and files from the topics of anthropocentrism and biocentrism. The first thing to look at, though, is always the rhetoric. First the term Justice must be brought to the table. You can either take the ethical stance of Justice, or the judicial and legal stance. The predication that one ought to do what is in the best interest of animals can come from many angles, be in ethical, legal, or corporate.
"The claim that animals have ‘rights’ was first put forward by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer in the 1970s and has been the subject of heated and emotional debates ever since. There are many contexts in which the question of ‘animal rights’ comes up. Should we farm animals? If so by what techniques? Should we eat animals? Should we hunt and fish them? Is it morally acceptable to use animals as sources of entertainment in the context of zoos, circuses, horse racing etc.? Often the same organizations that campaign on environmental issues (e.g. Greenpeace) are also concerned for the welfare of animals: both sets of concerns derive from a commitment to the value of Nature and the Earth. The question of animal rights might well come up in a debate on biodiversity, and is one with so many political and social implications that it is also worth having in its own right. This debate is about the ethical principles at issue; the separate debates on biodiversity, vegetarianism, zoos, blood sports, and animal experimentation deal with more of the concrete details."
Lets start with negative strategies. One way you can look at this is by placing an observation that says Humans are the only agents capable of comprehending the concept of ‘rights’, and thus it is not something that is inherently sought after by animals, and thus their life is neither negatively or positively affected by rights. In fact, were they to have rights, we would have to also place restrictions on their actions, and we would have to hold them to the same standards of justice as we do human beings. In this case, we would have to hold them on trial for things such as murder, and since they are incapable of arguing in their own defense, placing them in a situation where they have to operate a system that is not even natural to their instinct is in fact an injustice to them. Humans, on the other hand, are naturally drawn towards rights. This is seen in the concept of the Social Contract. In mans state of nature, we seek to survive. However, within this state of nature our protections go only as far as our abilities to provide that defense extends. Beyond that, we are at the mercy of the strong. At this point, man begins to understand that two are better than one, and three better than two. Man bands together to form a society, and places guidelines upon that which one may or may not do to one another within their society. This is how they establish what is and is not just. Thus, the only way for animals to have justice is for them to establish it within their own ranks. But again, they are not conscious to the meaning of justice and the concept of ethics. The only animal justice is that the strong survive.
The international debate education association is a good place to start when it comes to topics like these. On their web page is the previous citation as well as the following to be said to support the argument for animal rights based on both ethical and just parameters.
Human beings are complex evolved creatures who are accorded rights on the basis that they are able to think and to feel pain. Many other animals are also able to think (to some extent) and are certainly able to feel pain. Therefore non-human animals should also be accorded rights, e.g. to a free and healthy life. We should err on the side of caution in ascribing rights to human or non-human creatures. If we place high standards (such as the ability to think, speak, or even to enter into a social contract) on the ascription of rights there is a danger than not only animals, but also human infants and mentally handicapped adults will be excluded from basic rights. Cruelty to animals (e.g. bull fighting, fox hunting, battery hen farming) is the sign of an uncivilised society – it encourages violence and barbarism in society more generally. A society that respects animals and restrains base and violent instincts is a more civilised one. The basic cause of preventing exploitation of animals is not undermined by the fact that a small number of extremists and criminals attach themselves to it. And it is not reasonable to expect AR campaigners not to take medicine – they must look after their own health whatever way they can until a more humane sort of medicine is developed.
IDEA also publishes the following against animal rights.
Human beings are infinitely more complex than any other living creatures. Their abilities to think and talk, to form social systems with rights and responsibilities, and to feel emotions are uniquely developed well beyond any other animals. It is reasonable to try to prevent the most obvious cases of gratuitous suffering or torture of animals, but beyond that, non-human animals do not deserve to be given ‘rights’. The fact that we are (incredibly distantly) related to other animals does not mean that it makes sense to talk about them having ‘rights’. This sort of thinking would have absurd consequences: e.g. saying that we should respect the ‘right’ to life of bacteria, or the ‘right’ of the AIDS virus to move freely and without restriction, and to associate freely with other living organisms. We might wish to reduce unnecessary animal suffering, but not because all creatures to which we are distantly related have rights. Only human beings who are members of society have ‘rights’. Rights are privileges that come with certain social duties and moral responsibilities. Animals are not capable of entering into this sort of ‘social contract’ – they are neither moral nor immoral creatures, they are amoral. They do not respect our ‘rights’, and they are irrational and entirely instinctual. Amoral and irrational creatures have neither rights nor duties – they are more like robots than people. All human beings or potential human beings (e.g. unborn children) can potentially be given rights, but there are no non-human animals fall into that category. It is perfectly natural to use animals for our own nutrition and pleasure – in the wild there is much suffering as animals struggle to survive, are hunted by predators, and compete for food and resources. Human beings have been successful in this struggle for existence and do not need to feel ashamed of exploiting their position as a successful species in the evolutionary process. Animal Rights activists are hypocrites, extremists, and terrorists who don’t even care about human life. Organisations such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) use terrorist tactics and death-threats; PETA are also an extremist organisation. These AR extremists still avail themselves of modern medicine, however, which could not have been developed without experiments and tests on animals. Animal welfare is a reasonable concern, but talking of animal ‘rights’ is a sign of extremism and irrationality.
Dixon, Thomas. "Animal Rights: Debatabase - Debate Topics and Debate Motions." IDEA: International Debate Education Association - Debate Resources & Debate Tools. Churchill College, Cambridge., 30 June 2000. Web. 21 Aug. 2011. <http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=8>.
This piece of evidence is an excellent example depicting precisely how rights are inherent to humans alone. Now with this article, Dixon exemplifies the fact that there are more than just ethical reasons for placing rights into humanity alone, but also that there are valid biological reasons for doing so. Dixon does say, however, that humanity is required to show a degree of respect to the certain cases where abuse becomes prevalent. In order to be successful on the negative with this strategy that Dixon proposes, it will be important for you to set up an observation and a definition framework to prevent the affirmative from taking the debate to the topic of animal abuse. Remember, abuse is not the opposite of rights. Do not allow the affirmative to set up a parameter around abuse, or you will have to have a strong argument for utilitarianism.
No comments:
Post a Comment