By Billy Atwell|Published Date: August 04, 2010

Success, silkworms and moral equivalency (2)

Last week Billy Atwell explained how animal rights’ activists cloud the difference between human beings and other creatures and, in the process, come dangerously close to favoring the wellbeing and flourishing of the latter over that of the former.

Where do the “rights” end?
When animals are elevated to the status of right-bearing, they become the moral equivalent of people, and if people and animals are equal, we have no rights above them.  But why do animal rights groups like PETA give such credit to animals?  What is the factor that distinguishes a non-moral being, which deserves no inherent rights, from moral ones, which do possess rights? 

Orthodoxy Today’s Ancient Faith Radio recently featured discussion of this issue. Wesley J. Smith, Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute and human exceptionalism advocate, argues these groups fundamentally believe the ability to feel pain and have cognitive capacity gives one rights.  As he mentions, this means that owning cattle is the moral equivalent to slavery and cattle driving is the moral equivalent of human trafficking, since animals and people alike have these capabilities.  In fact, Ingrid Newkirk, Cofounder and President of PETA, said, “The question is not, Can they [animals] reason? Nor, Can they talk? But, Can they suffer?”

This is a terrifying worldview.  Newkirk believes that because humans eat meat, own pets, and do things against the will of an animal (like bathing a collie), we are committing evil at the same level as if it were done to humans.  

Do not be fooled into thinking that cognitive capacity and the ability to feel pain are the only prerequisites for rights.  In the case of silkworms, they have no cognitive capacity and are unlikely to feel pain, and yet many still fight for their inherent rights equal to that of humans.  After they are done expressing their anti-human exceptionalism, I wonder why they would believe we have the moral capacity or duty to care for our equals (silkworms, flies, cows, etc) in the first place.  Like the lion on the television, if we are merely animals, than we act out of natural, indiscriminate instinct.  Plainly put: this worldview is self-contradictory.

Treated better than babies
One should not be surprised that the deconstruction of human value and the inflation of animal rights lead to activists speaking of animals in the same way that pro-lifers speak of children.  Newkirk told the Washingtonian magazine, “There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals.” 

So what do moral beings like us do when a right-bearing agent is being mistreated?  We work for justice and praise any group that works toward that end.  Pete Letheby, associate editor for The Independent, wrote in 2004, “PETA also does something else that hardly any other group does with any regularity: It stands up for those that can’t speak for themselves.  It sticks its neck out.  It takes chances.  It displays a great deal of mettle for a cause it profoundly believes in.”

Does this sound strangely familiar?  PETA protests sericulture, which boils silkworms at virtually an embryonic stage, but where do they stand on the dismembering of a human embryo or fetus?  If a human fetus is an animal, shouldn’t PETA also decry abortion?  And yet they stay silent on the issue when it is they who claim we are nothing but animals.  Why does PETA discriminate against humans when it comes to bestowing rights?

A “Catechismlic” conclusion
Many of us find it easy to pass these radical groups off as liberal lunatics that could not hold a consistent or rational thought if they had to.  The problem with taking them so lightly is that they are helping shape the discussion that will determine the important question of “what gives something rights?”  So far they are surprisingly successful in their efforts.  They claim we should care for animals, not out of our natural compassion, but because they hold rights equal to that of humans (and sometimes higher than that of humans).  This is a dangerous debate to risk losing. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks to the issue animal dignity and worth because animals should inherently be afforded a certain amount of value and love.  The Catechism says we must have a “religious respect for the integrity of creation” and owe them kindness out of respect for God having created them.  This says that treating animals carefully and lovingly is actually part of Christian duty.  Likewise, animals should never suffer or die needlessly; but we must understand that this is a far cry from equality with humans.

Keeping our emotions and righteous respect for animals in check, the Catechism also says, “It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should be as a priority go to the relief of human misery.  One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.” 

Groups such as PETA do some good work for the wrong reason, while many of their efforts are misguided and unethical.  Rather than promote animal welfare, they promote animal rights, which is where they become disillusioned and self-contradictory.  In attributing rights to animals they devalue humans and misplace the role of animals in culture. 

When humans and animals are treated alike, we need not be surprised when more people like Terri Shiavo are “put down” like animals, or when more babies are aborted in the name of convenience or population control.  If America does not pick its head out of the sand on recognizing humans as having distinct and inalienable rights, then we will be sure to lose them.

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.