Recently the issue of the proper treatment of animals—or, “animal rights” as it is often credited—has surfaced in a completely unpredictable way.

Hindu women in rural areas of Tamil Nadu—one of the 28 states of India—are producing silk as a way to increase their monthly income. This income is used to better their family’s standard of living, pass a useful trade on to their children, and send their children to school. Some are also heralding this as a way to empower Indian women in a trade that is largely being turned over to larger companies.

For those of us who support free-market economy, this is a perfect example of individuals empowering themselves to develop a trade that is unlikely to go anywhere soon, and earn a good living in the process.

There are, as we would expect, opponents. Namely, PETA and select Hindu activists are in opposition to this trade. PETA and some Hindus believe that the process by which silk is made is unethical and harmful to silkworms. Sericulture—the process of making silk—involves boiling the worms and/or placing them in extremely hot ovens. As reported by Julia Duin of the Washington Times:

“Silk comes from tiny eggs laid by female silk moths that hatch into larvae that feed on chopped mulberry leaves. These silkworms secrete from salivary glands a viscous fluid that hardens into a filament on contact with air. Spinning around in figure eights, the worms cocoon themselves with a single filament that can measure up to 300 feet long. Before the worm can hatch, the cocoon is dropped into boiling water.”

In order to verify the claim that silkworms feel pain, PETA claims that silkworms must have sensory organs because when you pick up a rock and you see worms underneath, they move around and react to the light and other the changes in their environment. Unfortunately, problem with this argument is that robots and plants also react to light and changes in their environment, but that does not mean they have the ability to feel pain.

Additionally, science will never be able to conclusively answer whether or not silkworms feel pain. This has nothing to do with the fact that subjective beings are unable objectively to interpret the feelings of other beings based on their behavior. These worms do not have the standard apparatuses to feel pain; such as a brain to transmit such feelings to the rest of its body. Likewise, silkworms are processed for silk at the pupa stage. At the pupa stage, silkworms do not react to changes in their environment. Though I may be belaboring the point, the amount of heat generated in the Sericulture process is so intense that many question whether or not a being with a brain, nerves, and other necessary faculties would feel pain in the first place.

Animal “rights” proponents actively work to ensure animals are treated properly. Abuse, starvation, neglect, and other problems certainly exist and should be actively fought. Their definition of what is proper differs from that of most people, but nevertheless they are active in their efforts. More than for their legitimate work for the proper treatment of animals, however, animals “rights” activists are known for extreme, criminal, and, at the very least, ridiculous behavior. In attempting to convey their sometimes legitimate point, they create a media circus merely to gain attention.

Even though science, and yes, even PETA, are unable to make a convincing case for silkworms feeling pain during sericulture, the underlying argument is not about silk; it’s about treating animals and insects as though they are humans.

Most Americans agree that animals should not be abused, neglected, or generally mistreated. Yet fighting for such things is not part of the animal rights movement. These basic considerations are best expressed through a fight for animal welfare, which is far from animal rights.

Animals certainly deserve protection against mistreatment because it is the nature of the human person to show compassion and because animals are part of creation and should therefore be respected. Animal rights groups do not believe that rights are reserved specifically for human beings, and with this misunderstanding they press forward in the wrong direction. By emphasizing animal rights as opposed to animal welfare, animal rights groups actually trivialize human rights and jeopardize human freedom.

The problem with trivializing humans to the status of animals is that, as animals, there is no reason to believe we would be able to demonstrate compassion and good-will while functioning on base instincts. The logical end to this problem is that we must conclude that humans are unique in their ability to show compassion and good-will and for that reasons singularly bear rights.

If animals naturally possessed rights, then the animal kingdom would operate very differently than it does. If it was wrong to kill animals for our own consumption and proper balance of the environment, then animals would never kill to eat either. But we have all seen lions on TV chasing down their prey. They do not have any concern for the “rights” of the animal they hunt. Since most animal rights activists claim that we are nothing but animals with base instincts, why would we operate with different ethics than animals? If cats are given a pass for torturing a mouse before killing it, then why can people not do the same with a puppy or a goat?

The answer is simple, but often overlooked: we are not animals, and our exceptional nature is what compels us to treat animals with love and respect as part of creation.

Billy Atwell will conclude this study next week. For more insight to this question, get the book, Is God a Vegetarian? Christianity, Vegetarianism, and Animal Rights, by Richard Alan Young and Carole J. Adams, at our online store. Or read the article, “Animal Rights, Human Rights,” by Thomas S. Derr.