Animal Rights: Debatabase - Debate Topics and Debate Motions

About IDEA | About Debate | Teaching Tools | Publications | Store | Events | Join IDEA | Programs and Projects | Donate | Contact Us
Need help? | Register Now

Animal Rights print this page

Intro to Debatabase Discuss topic
Summary: Do non-human animals have rights?
Debatabase Junior
Contributing Topics
Introduction
Commission Topics
Author:Thomas Dixon ( United Kingdom ) Dr. Thomas Dixon is research fellow of Churchill College,
My Topics
Cambridge.
Submit Topic
Suggest Topic Created: Friday, June 30, 2000
Last Modified: Thursday, April 09, 2009

Context
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
organisations 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.

2011 Bosnia and Herzegovina
Leadership Program
Exact dates TBA. Eighteen
high school students and three
teachers from Bosnia and
Herzegovina (BiH) attend the
highly interactive Youth
Leadership Program and
accompanying Teacher
Professional Development
Program, in Salem, Oregon,
and Washington, DC.
More about this event
Slovak Debate Association:
Bratislava Schools'
Competition
The Slovak Debate
Association would like to invite
you to the international
Bratislava Schools Debating
Competition. The tournament
will take place from 7th to 11th
April 2011 in Slovakia’s capital
city (yep, you guessed it)
Bratislava.
More about this event
Arguments
Pros
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.
Ever since the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin
of Species in 1859 we have known that human beings
are related by common descent to all other animals.
We owe a duty of care to our animal cousins.
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.
Cons
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 o non-
human animals fall into that category.

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
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

file:///C|/Users/User/Desktop/Debatebase/Animal%20Rights.htm[3/31/2011 9:27:50 PM]

Animal Rights: Debatabase - Debate Topics and Debate Motions

HWS / IDEA Round Robin
In the HWS / IDEA round
robin the International Debate
Education Association and
Hobart and William Smith
Colleges are bringing together
an elite and internationally
diverse group of debaters and
adjudicators for a weekend of
debate at the highest level.
More about this event
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.
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.

IDEA Exchange 2011 – Vilnius
15-17th April!
If you are interested in making
a positive change in your
community, if you are working
or volunteering for the
promotion of the values of an
open society, if you are
interested in debate –
competitive and non-
competitive, if you would like
to meet other
More about this event
Motions
This House Believes that Animals Have Rights Too
This House Would Respect Animals’ Rights
This House Condemns the Exploitation of Animals
Useful Sites
Animal Rights FAQ
PETA
PETA: Factsheet Index
Animal Aid
Pages covering the writings of Peter Singer, the leading philosopher of animal rights
EthicsUpdates.Edu: The Moral Status of Animals
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Animal Rights
Libertarian Alliance pamphlet: Why Animals Don't Have Rights
Why Animal Rights Don't Exist

Useful Books
Animal Liberation
By: Peter Singer
Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals
Estonian Debating Society By: Steven Wise
and IDEA join forces to Animal Rights (Opposing Viewpoints)
organize Estonia Open 2011!
By: Jennifer Hurley
Estonian Open 2011 will be Animal Rights: A Handbook for Young Adults
held in British Parliamentary
By: Daniel Cohen
Style: 5 preliminary rounds
with 5-minute speeches, Animal Rights: Yes or No? (Pro/Con)
followed by semi-finals and By: Marna Owen
Grand Final with 7-minute
speeches. Team cap for the
tournament is 36 and N-1
Themes
judging rule applies for the Moral and Religious
teams. Chi
More about this event Discuss
View the full discussion

Author Post

Dancer51 Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 06:52 pm

Member
Only 9% ofproducts tested on animals make it to the market, $12 billion are spent
every year on animal testing, which should be given to a better cause. It is also illegal
for people to abuse animals so why isn’t it yet illegal for scientists to use animals for
testing that will result in harming the animal or death? Statistics also show that 50%
of animals used in testing die 2 to 3 weeks later. Animals are forced to drink the
product, have it put into there eye, or are forced to inhale it with drug masks. They
dont have any pain killers, so they feel all of the pain. 94% of all animals are used for
cosmetic pourposes, and to top it off the FDA states that they DO NOT riquire the
testing on animalsfor cometic pourposes.

ellie-y Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 08:58 am

Member
I think we can't say that no human animals have rights. If no human animals have
rights, of course no human animals should not be killed only because they can be
food for human beings.It must be prohibited to hunt or breed for our food. If we can't
do so, then, what can we eat? Can you imagine the life without eating humburger and

file:///C|/Users/User/Desktop/Debatebase/Animal%20Rights.htm[3/31/2011 9:27:50 PM]

Animal Rights: Debatabase - Debate Topics and Debate Motions

meat-pie? Of course the existence of no human animals is not only for the food.
However, are the rights the same as human needed for no human animals? If they
have the right to speak out their own opinion without anyone's interfece, what can
they speak? What no human animals with the right to get pension, how can they use
it? Even if they get the rights, can they recognize for having them? I can't deny that
humanbeings is one of the animals, but we are very peculiar exsistance. The rights
are special previledge for us.

Nichelle Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 01:48 pm

Member
We should be ashamed if through animal testing we learn new ways to save even
one persons life and instead we don't do the testing and let the people die so that a
few monkeys can live a year or two longer.

Login to leave a quick reply or View the full discussion

Home Privacy Statement Contact Us Terms and Conditions

IDEA Inc. and the Dutch registered IDEA are separate organizations that operate independently yet cooperate informally with each other. This website, a
joint presentation, is intended to promote both organizations' interests while maintaining their respective independence.

Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative License.
Queries: IDebate Webmaster.

file:///C|/Users/User/Desktop/Debatebase/Animal%20Rights.htm[3/31/2011 9:27:50 PM]