Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Some Minor Musings On The Potential 2017-2018 Non-Human Animals Legal Rights Resolution

Second on the list of NSDA's 2017-2018 potential LD resolutions is Resolved: In the United States, non-human animals ought to have legally protected rights. 

I need to begin with a disclaimer. I live in a house owned by two felines who have spent the past 14 years working to convince me that human civilization reached it zenith when the ancient Egyptians worshiped their feline ancestors. My daily interaction with these two wannabe deities who maintain that legal rights are insufficient for beings of divine status might cloud my judgement on this resolution.

On a more debate related note, there is a Nonhuman Rights Project which works "through litigation, public policy advocacy, and education to secure legally recognized fundamental rights for nonhuman animals." More specifically, the organization seeks to "[t]o change the common law status of great apes, elephants, dolphins, and whales from mere “things,” which lack the capacity to possess any legal right, to “legal persons,” who possess such fundamental rights as bodily liberty and bodily integrity." Further, a quick Goggle search uncovers the fact that India declared dolphins and whales as nonhuman persons in 2013. In addition, there seems to be a plethora of recent studies on nonhuman animal sentience.

That fact that no one judging these debates will have degrees in neuroscience portends that the arguments may fall into Free Willy vs Operation Dumbo Drop vs "get your hands off her you damn dirty ape." More importantly, the devil will be in the details: the definition of a nonhuman animal or the scope of the rights granted.  Fans of policy T debate and LD definitional warfare may relish this topic. The rest of us, not so much. 

Those who want LD to focus on traditional ethics and philosophical concepts will suffer through a lot of one person policy debates featuring vague non-plans with a ton of Peter Singer.

On the plus side, I don't recall debating this one before, and we should hear new arguments weekly. (Feel free to insert bad weakly pun here.) Those who are fighting to broaden support for programs within their respective buildings get to involve the science department folk.

As I said earlier, I'll do some sort of ranking after completing these brief musings, but I am certain I don't want to debate this one in January/February.

No comments: