Jun 25, 2010

animal rights for people, too

NOTE: This topic was chosen for Sept. / Oct. 2011. Current comments and thoughts are posted here.

First in a series of previews of potential 2010-2011 LD topics.

An alien spaceship descends on your hometown, bug-eyed spindly-legged creatures emerging from its bowels. "Great," you think. "This is gonna be great." You've always wondered whether there was intelligent life elsewhere in the universe--and here it is, practically knocking down your door.

Actually, it is knocking down your door, and vaporizing your furniture, and corralling you and your family into cages, until you're whisked off to some distant galaxy, ostensibly to serve as entertainment for Emperor Garthron of Planet X.

You try to reason with your captors. Their eyes are blank with apathy, however; they cannot hear, nor can they understand your rudimentary bleating. They ignore your gestures and are unfazed by your scribblings. Your actions are meaningless to them, beyond the detached interest of idle alien curiosity.

How would you convince one of these aliens that their behavior is unjust, and that they've violated your rights?

Or would you even bother to try?

Clearly, your rights exist regardless of your ability to articulate them to an outsider. But what if the situation were reversed, a la District 9? Would intelligent aliens have rights?

Or, more to the point, what if animals find themselves in the same position regarding their human neighbors?

These, and other challenging moral questions, are raised by one of the potential LD topics for the 2010-11 season.
Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.
How wide is the circuit of our moral concern? Should it include organisms of different species?

Why do we care about animals?
Suppose you feel anger or sadness about recent reports about whales' susceptibility to industrial toxins. Your sentiments could arise from many sources: appreciation of the whales' beauty and power and intelligence; pity for their helplessness; respect for their unique place in nature, or for divine mandates for environmental stewardship. You could also take a different tack, highlighting their instrumental value--for instance, their essential role in the oceanic ecosystem, or their utility as a food source.

The last makes the problem particularly acute. It's tough to concede rights to something you might grill on the barbecue. Here the culturally arbitrary nature of our attachments becomes evident: some folks dress up their dogs in funny clothes, while other folks eat them. (And if dogs have a right not to suffer, why not whales?)

How do we define "animal?"
Dictionary.com (based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary) gives us at least three workable definitions.
1.any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.
This scientific definition would set up an interesting affirmative:
All humans have rights.
All humans are animals.
Therefore, some animals have rights.
Thus, we affirm the resolution.
The second and third definition are much narrower:
2. any such living thing other than a human being.
3. a mammal, as opposed to a fish, bird, etc.
The former sets up a distinction between human rights and animal rights, which is the traditional manner of thinking about such things. The latter is even more restrictive, making it so the affirmative would have to defend rights for whales and grizzlies and gibbons, but not for lobsters, snakes, or chickens. (Serious efforts to grant rights to apes and to cetaceans already exist.)

Which animals would have rights?
The definition chosen points to a potential answer; other arguments might revolve around distinctions based on sentience or intelligence.

Which rights would these animals have?
Hard to say. In Spain, for instance, non-human apes have rights of life and freedom from suffering.

Where do rights come from?
If they come from God, we may have to turn to some kind of scripture to answer the question.
If they're inherent, we have to figure out whether they're inherent in animals.
If they're social constructions, we have to decide whether our society admits nonhumans.
If they're contractual, we have to wonder whether non-signatories are covered by the contract.
If they're legal constructs, we have to determine whether the law assigning rights to animals is wise.
If they're a matter of utility, we need to know whether a life with animal rights increases utility.

Recommended Reading
The SEP's entry on the moral status of animals.
Lawrence Hinman's list of relevant links and resources.


stidmatt said...

This made me think of Animal Farm a little bit. This would be an interesting resolution and potentially extremely hilarious with some cases from some debaters.

Animal Annie said...

I think that the main reason that we care about animals is that as social animals with extended childhoods, humans have an instinctive need to care for other living things.

Because something is worth caring for doesn't necessarily mean that it has "rights", though.

girlrockingguna said...

Hey Jim- I posted a while back about the VBI topic- but the post disappeared? Could you repost your answer about the human rights topic (my question was about aff ideas). THANKS!

Jim Anderson said...

There was some kind of error, but if you click the link above, it should be working now. Sorry about that.

Nirav said...

In Texas, the University Interscholastic League's Spring 2010 LD topic was: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism. A lot of the debates I participated in and/or watched focused on the issue of animal rights and morality.

The idea that we could simply affirm because humans are considered animals is interesting, but a good debater should be able to refute the argument by stating that this would only be partially affirming the resolution.

Debate Fanatic said...

So the resolution doesn’t specify owned or “un-owned” animals. So by the US Constitution all humans have the right to property. So if I own a dog, it is my property and my property doesn’t have rights because I have the right to property. So is it safe to say that that animal in particular would not have rights and any injustice done to that animal cannot be punished or brought to justice?
1. When the resolutions uses the word justice is it to mean like,
“Michael Vick use dogs to fight which endangered animals. In order to bring him to justice, we need to recognize animals as an entity with some type of intrinsic value.” The reason why humans have rights is because it was noted that humans have some intrinsic value that makes us different from all other creatures. Humans have the capacity to make moral decisions and act on them unlike other creatures. (I just don't understand what the resolution is asking us to defend or negate)
I'm just trying to find out what is what.. any ideas?