That animal rights should be legally recognised

Let me first get rid of the obvious question. No, I do not think animals should have the same or even similar legal rights to us as humans. Short of allowing animals to claim independence and freedom of movement, not to mention religious equality (hindu cows, anyone) and the complete destruction of animal agriculture. However, can we not recognise in law that which we DO recognise as sacrosanct? We'll come back to this.

Human rights were not internationally enshrined in law until after the second world war. Individual countries had bills of rights, ratified in a constitution or not, but until 1948 there was no established human bill of rights. The horrors of WW2 allowed people to see the necessity for the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The legal framework for prosecution upon violation of these rights followed soon after.

Why was it that those most basic of human freedoms were not universally protected before this point? Did we simply not care? An argument for another case, perhaps, but what is absolutely clear is this: the UDHR provided a legal basis on which violators could be brought to account. From despots to dictators, human rights were no longer subjective. Would a manifestation of animal rights be such an onerous proposition?

What would an animal "Bill of Rights" look like? I would argue that the most basic rights could, and should easily be protected. Would would argue against protection from torture, or inhumane treatment? From cruel or unusual forms of manipulation? From forced feeding, or enforced starvation. Would it be so much more of a leap than from the basic provision already written into law regarding the protection of animals from cruelty? 

Animals play a huge part of our lives here on Earth. We eat them, play with them, put them in zoos and aquariums, pet them, turn them into clothes and shoes. Who here could truly say that they would not accept or support the idea that those animals were protected on the most basic level? That if you eat chicken, it's not been forced into a cage to live in it's own faeces with no room to even open it's wings? That if you wear leather the cow wasn't tortured before death? Who would oppose these basic provisions of respect other than those who see animals as little more than an open chequebook.

Ultimately, it comes down to us. Do we, as a species, want to abuse and manipulate our way through life with little to no regard to other life forms? I say it is entirely possible to enjoy a world where we eat meat, have a dog as a pet and ride our horses through the plains, and do so with the rights of those animals firmly established in law. 

Firstly, I would like to define animal rights as "rights believed to belong to animals," self-explanatory. "Should" in this case is defined as an "obligation" to do something, as contrasted with that "is," i.e. the status quo. "Legally recognised" is defined as something as something in which rights should be given to. "Animals" in this case refers to every sentient non-human being. 

Now, this debate is not about whether animals have rights or not, but whether it should be legally recognised. There is a tacit difference. In some cases, rights are not legally recognised. We all have a right to not starve on the streets and die, but if we were to do so, there would be no laws that would sanction such an act. Hence, this debate is truly not a moral and ethical debate, but a legal debate.

This debate is a legal debate, and henceforth, the yardstick will be legal validity. How legally valid or legally binding one position is as compared to another will ultimately provide the voters with votes. Hence, the BoP of Pro is to prove that the concept of animal rights is legally valid, whilst I have to show that it is simply not. 

In negating the resolution, I shall present two arguments, one of which will be addressed in this round. My two arguments are that animals do not deserve legal recognition as they have not entered the social contract, and that animals do not need rights to be protected. 

Now Pro makes many arguments throughout his case. The first argument that the opposition presents is this notion that animals should be protected as we "eat them, play with them, put them in zoos and aquariums, pet them, turn them into clothes and shoes." Hence, should we not ensure that the law protects chickens from being "forced into a cage to live in it's own faeces with no room to even open it's wings." This is self-contradictory. One cannot advocate for a system where the rights of animals will be protected, but at the same time not make sanctions against the killing of animals. The right to life is the most important and sacrosanct concept in the world, and if animals rights were to be recognised by law, Pro cannot hold such a contradictory position.

The second of Pro's argument argues that "[the human] species [should not] abuse and manipulate our way of life with little or no regard of other life forms." But do we have to go so far so as much as so that we recognise animal rights legally? We attempt, everyday, to reduce deforestation, and we have attempted in many ways attempted to respect the ecological structure of the environment. In doing so, we did not in anyway needed to recognise, legally, the rights of trees, or the rights of rivers etc. Hence, in really achieving this aim, the legal recognition of rights is in no way necessary.

Legal recognition implies another side-effect: that of duties and responsibilities. A legally recognised concept or institution, apart from gaining rights, also gain other responsibilities. These responsibilities may include paying taxes or abiding by other laws which were created by the government. Animals, however, are unable to fulfil these responsibilities and are unable to reciprocal, and henceforth, legal recognition of their rights would not be legally valid. 

Animals, although they may follow a set of rule, act on an instinct of self-preservation, and think nothing of society as a whole. If we were to look in biology, we see that this is often not the case, as many animals live in systems where the rights of their own species are constantly violated. In chimpanzee society, chimps live under a set rule which can often be best described as anarchy. For example, Craig B. Stanford notes that: 

Although their is some sort of ethical value and manner that Chimp. society share, their noted anarchy and their inability to work with people from other groups and territories suggest a mere non-acceptance of principles that make a good legal and law-abiding society. This argument can also extend to social interactions of other primates. This behaviour also exists in reptiles. The crocodile is noted for its "[competition] with each other for territory,
sometimes fighting to the death." Of course, humans have been known for particularly atrocious behaviours too, but what humans have are laws that govern how we act in everyday life. When we kill a person, we often accept that we have wronged. But many animals do not have this capability of wrong and right. Although many animals perform acts that we would see as "altruistic," there is an ongoing debate about whether this actually amounts to animal morality or not. A strong argument has been persuasively argued in the concept of the Selfish Gene, a concept developed by famed biologist Richard Dawkins. In it, Dawkins argues that:

Now let us connect this with the legal recognition case again. A law is a law only when it is applied equally by everyone to everyone. This application entails some sort of legal understanding and contract. Animals, as is shown by the anarchic world of animals, do not have this contract with society. Hence, how are we to be sure that they will fill their side of a contract? Legal validity is based upon the concept that if one concept is legally recognised, then, on balance, the whole of society gets their benefits, and if animals act on the instinct of protection of territory and the advancement of their own species in the salad of species of the world, then there can be no gain from such a legal recognition.

As a a graduate of law, let me say that although Con attempts to formalise this debate within a framework of legal contention, he is simply wrong in some of his assertions. Before we move on let me clarify them.

1. He claims there is a tacit difference between between the existence of rights and their legal standing. This is untrue. A human's rights are exactly enshrined in law. In Europe, by the ECHR; in America by Federal and State Law and in Canada by Territorial, Provincial and National Laws. The example Con gave to support his point actually does the opposite. The right 'not to starve' isn't actually a right per say, but he is referring to the right to food, which is indeed a human right. However, if a person deliberately tries to starve himself, at the point at which it becomes dangerous to his life, under the statute of law he can be force fed in prevention of suicide. A person's individual rights are still subject to the rule of law, as in this case

2.  Con claims that it's contradictory of me to argue for the legal recognition of animal rights whilst allowing them to be killed. In legal terms, there is no contradiction at all. If I was arguing this position with a Vegan, he/she might well claim there is a moral contradiction there, but in not in terms of the law. It is entirely normal, in law, to protect the quality of life without giving absolutist right to life itself. Even we, as people, do not have an absolute right to life in the law; No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. Everyone has the right to  life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. It is this principle that allows the US government to provide rights to prisoners on death row, whom they will ultimately execute.

3. Con embarks on a huge long narrative regarding animal behaviour and chimpanzee behaviour an social activity. This particular line of "reasoning" is wholly irrelevant (I started to get bored after the first paragraph), but eventually dribbles into the conclusion that (and here I paraphrase for reasons of expedition) 'animals cannot have rights as they are unable to meet the implied requirements of their obligations within the law'. Now I don't know my opponent's level of education, but I can only assume he's never actually read the laws he's supposedly invoking. 

Laws do not require any sort of contract, period. A person in a coma and unable to speak is still protected by the law in the same way as a sentient person, and their Human Rights are not invalidated by a lack of complicity. In fact there are multiple laws in place already to protect the rights of vulnerable beings, many of whom have no more comprehension than animals.

Con also states that 'a law is only a law when equally applied to everyone, by everyone.' Unfortunately, this is again the most simplistic interpretation of the law. What Con is referring to is called the egalitarian principle; often cited as 'equality before the law'. However, the reason bi-laws exist is to clarify and seek exemptions, and such would be the case for animal rights. Legally, police officers may carry non-concealed weapons where citizens cannot, as an example.

4. 'Legal validity is based upon the concept that if one concept is legally recognised, then, on balance, the whole of society gets their benefits, and if animals act on the instinct of protection of territory and the advancement of their own species in the salad of species of the world, then there can be no gain from such a legal recognition.' This is wrong, on so many levels. I don't even know where to begin with that one.

Above are just the legal mistakes Con has made. He's really offered nothing in terms of a rebuttal to my arguments as his entire argument is based on inference on laws he doesn't understand. His mention of a 'yardstick' is bafflingly vague and naive... a true yardstick would include some sort of reference citation.

My argument remains: it is entirely possible to recognise the rights of animals without compromising our standard of life or our legal system validity. I welcome and arguments from Con that speak to that