Question

Resolution: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.

Affirmative position: Animals have moral and legal rights. Therefore, humans should not use animals for any purpose. Animals have basic interests that deserve recognition, consideration, and protection.

Negative position: Animals have no moral or legal rights. Philosophers have long supported the idea that animals are not capable of judgment, as humans are; that laws are made by, and for, humans; and that animals are unable to use reasoning.

Which statement best uses the ideas of the negative in an affirmative rebuttal?

Even though rights are a human concept, animals deserve rights.
Animals deserve the same rights as humans, even if they cannot express feelings.
Animals are unable to make laws, so they rely on humans for their protection.
Morals are determined by humans, not by animals.

THE ANSWER IS C.

Answer 1

The best affirmative rebuttal using ideas from the negative position would be: 'Animals are unable to make laws, so they rely on humans for their protection.'

Step-by-step explanation:

The best affirmative rebuttal using ideas from the negative position would be:

Animals are unable to make laws, so they rely on humans for their protection.

By stating that animals are unable to make laws, it reinforces the negative position that animals do not have moral or legal rights. However, the statement also acknowledges that animals deserve protection, indicating an affirmative position in recognizing the basic interests of animals.