Animal rights Affirmative Animal rights AFF I stand resolved: that justice requires the recognition of animal rights

The relevant value in the debate is justice. Justice is 'the quality of being fair and reasonable. Requires means "to have as a requisite." The phrase animal rights implysuggests “The rights of animals, claimed on ethical grounds, to the same human treatment and protection from exploitation and abuse that are accorded to humans." These definitions are preferable because they create a fair division between the affirmative and negative. The negative has the ability to make arguments about the need to exploit animals under a utilitarian framework. And the affirmative gets to defend that it is ethically wrong to exclude animal rights. My affirmation of the resolution will center on what defines justice. This resolution does not require the affirmative to defend a world in which justice exists, or even whether or not that world should exist. The resolution poses a philosophical question related to defining justice. As the affirmative, I must win prove that a just world would require recognition so of animal rights; the negative must disprove that statement. Questions related to the consequences of this world statement are irrelevant to defining justice. Hilden 2007 What about the hard case- non-human animal experiments that actually would predictably lead to saving human life? Imagining oneself behind the veil of ignorance, and recognizing that potentially oneone or one's family members might be the subject of these experiments, is an excellent curative for all the biases people typically carry. These biases are very human, but they are not entirely peripheral to justicepart of justice. It is understandable preferences, shaped by evolution, have nothing to do with any more than, say, evolutionarilydriven preferences for same-race people would. Just because we were born as humans does not mean that we should make moral decisions from the human perspective - we must consider the possibility that we would might instead behave been a non-human animal in order to craft a whollyto have a truly and truly just society. Hilden 2007 Our fate, Rawls holds, should ideally not be determined by factors outside our own control. Thus, in addition to Rawl’s core concept of “justice as fairness,” another aspect of his theory also counsels the inclusion of non human animals, Rawls emphasizes that in an ethical
Comment [TSD6]: Make sure you cite Rawls completely the first he’s mentioned.

Comment [TSD1]: Whose quote is this? Make sure that it’s cited.

Comment [TSD2]: I’m not sure what this means. Can you rephrase? Comment [TSD3]: Do you mean that this scenario is a curative for human beings unable to sympathize with the plight of animals undergoing testing? Comment [TSD4]: Again, it’s not ALL biases humans carry, but only a particular set related to animal testing. Comment [TSD5]: Which preferences do you mean? Make sure that you are specific here so the listener can follow your argument.

A Contractarian approach to Animal Rights Justice can only exist when we incorporate animals into the contract. if we refuse to even include the possibility of our imagining being them—or empathizing with them. nor does it entitle humans to protections denied other living creatures. Does a human deserve to be able to speak or use tools.” and he offered a worthy competitor in “the traditional theory of the social contract. Rawls argued that the just rules for a given real-world society are those that would rationally be chosen behind an imaginary “veil of ignorance. in contrast.” But just as some humans are “favored by nature” with exceptional capacities. part of the reason John Hart Ely argued for special protections for discrete and insular minorities was not just that they have lesser access to the political must view the world from a veil of ignorance. any of their personal qualities)or of the positions they will ultimately occupy in a real-world society. Can we ever expect to give justice to wolves. The species line is based not on moral desert.”2 In a nutshell. “deserve” to lack these abilities? Species is not a relevant difference. Animal testing yields inaccurate results. Contention 2. we do cannotnot choose it and cannotor control itthis reality. humans as a species are generally “ favored by nature” with greater capacities than non-human s to animals. but thus on the simple evolutionary fact of who can reproduce with whom and produce fertile offspring. It is as absurd as saying.society. It is the antithesis of justice to choice. Are you trying to say that our favored status differentially bestows on us preferred rights? Comment [TSD8]: Which choice? Comment [TSD9]: Do you mean deserving? Do you mean “just deserts”? Comment [TSD10]: But animals do lack certain abilities! Comment [TSD11]: Where is this paragraph coming from? Comment [TSD12]: You haven’t discussed contracts yet – be careful in introducing unprompted here. how much more alien will we find those who make their homes in our forests and mountains?. indeed. If we find alien those on the “other side of the tracks” or in the “gay neighborhood” or the “black neighborhood” in our own towns. why not also the contingency of being a nonhuman animal? Mentally disabled humans and children cannot enter into valid contracts either. “those who have been favored by nature. just to be sure that you have covered all your bases. but also that society tends to lack empathy toward them due to prejudice. Comment [TSD14]: Now I see that you define this here – make sure that happens the first instance you use this phrase! Many other important medical advances have been delayed because of misleading information derived from animal "models". whoever they are … are not to gain merely because they are more gifted… No one deserves his greater natural capacity nor merits a more favorable starting place in society. considering that you could not be a non. or simply due to the lack of accurate knowledge that arises from discreteness and insularity.. The favors nature differentially bestows are the very traits to be abstracted away behind the veil of ignorance.” where the deciding parties are placed in an “original position” in which they have no idea of their strengths and weaknesses (or. such that moral superiority flows from such desert? Does a non-human animal. The animal model of polio . since. It is thus a terrible line of reasoning to use as any kind of proxy for moral desert. Comment [TSD13]: I would be sure that you define this phrase the first time you use it.human animal Hilden 2007 What about a contractarian view of animal rights? John Rawls noted that “during much of modern moral philosophy he the predominant systematic theory has been some form of utilitarianism.? If the contingency of being a mentally disabled human must be considered behind the veil of ignorance.delays solutions Medical research modernization Committee 2006 Comment [TSD7]: I don’t understand what you mean here. that infertile humans derserve deserve fewer rights than fertile humans do. This lucky accident does not entitle humans to a more favorable starting place in society than non-human animals.

Similarly. kidney transplants. were accepted for a much longer time in human patients. development of surgery to replace clogged arteries with the patient's own veins was impeded by dog experiments which falsely indicated that veins could not be used. Likewise. Animal testing does not yield important contributions Medical research Modernization Committee 2006 How valuable is animal experimentation? The Medical Research Modernization Committee’s review of ten randomly chosen animal models of human disease did not reveal any impotant contributions to human health. Studies on monkeys falsely indicated that the polio virus was transmitted via a respiratory. Drugs can be rationally designed on computers and the tested on virtual organs or in virtual clinical trials. Computer modeling is more advanced than animal testing.resulted in a misunderstanding of the mechanism of infection. rather than a digestive route. Comment [TSD15]: I think these are copied and pasted from the PETA site right? . quickly rejected in healthy solves all of the impacts Medical research Modernization Committee 2006 Computer modeling is now so sophisticated that scientists can simulate in silico in minutes or hours experiments that would take months or years to perform in animals.