DAVID SZTYBEL'S ARGUMENT FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS

1. I uphold what is worthwhile.

I disagree.

2. The best way to uphold what is worthwhile is to promote the conjunction of what is worthwhile for all persons. (assumption)

I disagree.

3. The second-best way to uphold what is worthwhile (in cases in which one cannot uphold what is worthwhile for all persons concerned) is to salvage the greatest possible disjunction of what is worthwhile for persons. (assumption)

I disagree.

4. We cannot always promote what is worthwhile by benefiting, but we can almost always respect what is worthwhile by not harming. (observation)

I disagree.

5. If what is worthwhile for anyone is promoted, that may involve benefit, but at the very least, respecting what is worthwhile for anyone involves not subjecting that person to avoidable harm. (assumption)

I disagree.

6. Using animals for conventional purposes (fur, leather, food, experiments, circuses, and zoos) involves an avoidable harm for animals. (empirical observation and evaluation)

I disagree.

7. Therefore using animals for conventional purposes is not worthwhile for them. (from 5. and 6.)

I disagree.

8. What is unworthwhile for animals is irreconcilable with what is most worthwhile in general.(from 2.)

I disagree.

9. Therefore it is not worthwhile in general to use animals for conventional purposes. (from 7. and 8.)

I disagree.

In all good conscience, I now think that I agree with the animal rights argument (pending further reflection). So...I think I should try to become a vegan. HELP!

HOME