CreateDebate


Debate Info

20
30
Yes No
Debate Score:50
Arguments:42
Total Votes:54
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (15)
 
 No (20)

Debate Creator

HarvardGrad(174) pic



Animal's Rights are Equivalent to Humans

 

 

(Note: I understand humans are animals but for the sake of unnecessary debate I am contextualizing them as distinct.)

 

Yes

Side Score: 20
VS.

No

Side Score: 30
2 points

If humans consider themselves superior because of our intelligence, we should then be intelligent enough to protect and respect the creatures we share this planet with. ECO not EGO.

Side: Yes
1 point

Just to play devils advocate, I would have to say yes. Not only do they have rights, but they have the same responsibility to recognize the rights of others. As proof I will submit that animals have been prosecuted in courts of law in the past and I would argue that this practice, along with a recognition of animal rights, should continue today.

Supporting Evidence: History-Human-Animal-Interaction-MEDIEVAL-PERIOD (www.libraryindex.com)
Side: Yes
JavaScript(30) Disputed
2 points

The problem with your statement is your implicit assumption that the only entities that should have rights to life are those that are cognizant of the needs/preferences of others. This not only invokes a moral rationale, but also begs the question.

I would prefer you give a sound argument (inductive or otherwise) as to why an animals right to life should be not equivalent to that of a humans.

Given your statement I feel as though this will come to a moral argument - ha, and I'm sure we both do not wish to be encumbered with such a debacle.

Side: No
Amarel(4879) Disputed
1 point

The reason that my statement seems to beg the question is because I am discussing an original view of rights as such. This view would hold that it is simply the nature of rights that one must be cognizant of them in order to have them.

Rights are a moral concept which is why I would use moral rationale. If I were to take your stance I would say that animal's rights are equivalent to humans in that they are both entirely subjective. And you are right, we have been down this rabbit hole before.

Side: Yes
1 point

Holy crap, that is crazy. I don't know if in Medieval Times we can even claim humans had great rights.

Side: Yes

Humans are a higher level of sentience and emotional intelligence and are able to reason. Therefore mistreating a human is more immoral than mistreating an animal. Animals deserve to be protected from cruelty but humans being protected from cruelty is more important.

Side: No
HelpThem(13) Disputed
3 points

Your point suggests that humans are the only species that have strong emotional responses to their surroundings. Human beings aren't even the most intelegant species on Earth. If they aren't as evelved in certain aspects of life they need time to evolve. Humans did not start off the exact same as they are now. In the past humans have done horrible things, as animals do, and not giving other animals the chance to evolve as we have is unnecessary and pointless. You are insinuating that humans deserve more, are untitled to more, but if you were part of another species you would believe they should be protected.

Side: Yes
RxBando(15) Disputed
1 point

The debate here is not simply about the right to live or carry on as a species. Saying no doesn't mean I am justifying cruelty to animals. It simply means I am saying Animal rights are not equivalent (equivalent meaning equal in all aspects) to humans. So do you still think the answer is yes? Animals have all the same rights as humans? They do not, obviously by law, but should they? Really? Do they have the proper judgement or moral consciousness to properly exercise said rights? I think we both know the obvious answer here.

Side: No

What he said^.

Side: No
2 points

The philosophies that gave rise to the concept of rights required a being that could exercise rights. Animals can't do that. What animals can do is suffer. It is our recognition of this, and our expansive empathetic abilities, that has led to an understanding of moral responsibility toward animals concerning suffering. This understanding of responsibility is different from the concept of rights and should be understood separately in order to reduce confusion concerning the philosophies of moral rights.

Side: No
HelpThem(13) Disputed
2 points

You know what else animals can do? Fight. Even if humans created moral rights humans have the free will to make their own decisions, like for instance not hurting or killing animals. If a person couldn't do anything that a farm animal could would it be right to slaughter and eat them?

Side: Yes
Amarel(4879) Disputed
2 points

Animals can fight; what's that got to do with the topic? Your argument is that humans have free will; do animals? You will need to restate your last question, I don't know quite what you are asking.

Side: No
2 points

Nope humans are more evolved and are higher organisms so we've exclusive right to exploit them(animals) for our use.

Side: No
HelpThem(13) Disputed
1 point

If another species comes along thy is higher on the evolutionary tree you will still say humans deserve to be protected. Humans are biased to their species by nature. The want to protect themselves in imbedded in our instincts everything deserves to be protected no matter how evolved it is.

Side: Yes
HarvardGrad(174) Disputed
1 point

More evolved? Humans believe in things that don't exists, knowingly destroy themselves and are self-administering the criterion for intelligence- problem with this is my point, they don't fit their own criterion.

You eat meat right? I also believe you are religious, tell me how are creatures that practically commit suicide and extreme genocide without wanting to, but still knowingly, intelligent?

Side: Yes
JustIgnoreMe(3450) Clarified
2 points

Humans believe in things that don't exists

Some do, some don't, but so do animals ref

knowingly destroy themselves

Some do, some don't, but so do animals

how are creatures that practically commit suicide and extreme genocide without wanting to, but still knowingly, intelligent?

By developing the intelligence to create advanced weaponry even though we have not surpassed all of our ancestral patterns - e.g. competition for shared resources.

Though I'll note that I wouldn't describe anything as "more evolved" since that is not a real/tenable measurement.

Side: Yes

The unfortunate truth is that might makes rights. You can do anything that you are not stopped from doing. Humans have a lot more power to enforce our will than animals collectively. Therefore, even if we were to decide to take it upon ourselves to treat non-human animals the same as humans, it would be done through our delegation not their power and human rights would retain intrinsic primacy.

Side: No
HelpThem(13) Disputed
0 points

If all the animals on Earth combined attacked humans then people would die. So many animals on Earth have more strength then humans, and some have poison. We are tragically unmatched to deal with an event like the one you are suggesting. Humans are weak creatures and we have weapons that are ineffective aginsts certain animals. Might doesn't make rights, typically men are the physically stronger gender you argument suggusts that women, being physically weaker than most men, should not have the same rights.

Side: Yes
1 point

If all the animals on Earth combined attacked humans then people would die.

Yet animals do not have the wherewithal to plan or carry out such a coordinated attack - so that is irrelevant, no?

Might doesn't make rights

There are no natural rights. To the extent that any rights exist, it is through the collective will/ability to enforce them.

typically men are the physically stronger gender you argument suggusts that women, being physically weaker than most men, should not have the same rights.

A) This has been the history of such "rights" and is still the case in much of the world.

B) It does not say what should be the case, only what is the case.

C) Physical power is not the only power.

Side: No
minimurph83(194) Disputed
1 point

you do know we humans are the superior race on the planet?? we may not be able to out strength, swim, poison or jump all species but we can out smart any of them, and you say we have weapons that are ineffective against certain animals??? I reckon an RPG would kill pretty much any animal or a nuclear bomb? or C4 I could go on all night!!

Side: No
1 point

Even God said animals do not have equal rights compared to humans.

Genesis 1:26 (NIV) says "Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

This verse is basically saying that mankind has more power over the animals, and therefore, more rights.

Side: No
1 point

True. God DID say we are superior to animals. And anyway, why do our food need rights?

Side: No
1 point

Doesn't it seem weird that God said we are superior to our own biological kingdom?

Side: Yes
1 point

The general consensus is that Humans have more rights than animals.

This is especially evident through the practice of animal testing. While there are minorities who oppose the practice, most would agree that animal testing is a necessary practice.

Side: No

Well considering were the superior species on the planet and we dictate the rules on rights, I would say no! because animals are perceived as a lower form of intelligence and significance.

We are at the top of the food chain and animals are on the menu, so its impossible for them to have the same rights as us until there no longer a food source?

Its funny the more intelligent the animal is the less likely we are to eat it i.e. dolphin, the more dumber the animal the more likely we are to eat it and treat it in a certain way i.e. chicken.

Side: No

Of course its not the same. You think animals should be given council accomodation when they are homeless? Medical cover? And which animals would this extend to? Ants for example? Or only the cuddly kind of animal. Silly liberal logic.

Side: No

Here's the big question- Are rights in fact objective, and measurable? Or are they social constructs primarily tied to government?

I believe they are the latter. That tells a lot about what rights are- rights only exist if you, or someone acting on your behalf (primarily governments) has the capability to enforce the protection of said rights.

So, working from there- in most developed countries animals do have rights that are protected by governments and their law enforcement officers. For the most part, though, they are decidedly inferior to the rights granted to humans; I'm not aware of any society that holds animals to have equal rights to humans. Individuals and organizations of individuals certainly can, but I'm not aware of any of these who actually have the capability to enforce the protection of animal rights on any kind of scale.

Consider for a moment: Do individuals living in countries controlled by Sharia law have the right to free practice of religion? It would appear not. If one believes that these individuals do have rights that are being violated, from where do those rights originate? Why is a society who believes in individual right to religious expression objectively right, and why is a society who does not believe in this objectively wrong?

Side: No