Animal Rights: A Primer


Image via Wikipedia

On the belief that the ability to feel pain is the only moral measure:

This view is very destructive, because if you destroy human exceptionalism—which is what the animal rights movement intends to do, it disdains human exceptionalism—if you say that we are not the highest life form on the planet, if our lives do not have greater value than those of animals, then you have completely changed how we perceive ourselves. Animal rights people may think they are raising animals to the level of people, but what they are really doing is reducing people to the level of animals.

On the dangerous susceptibility of young people when taught about animal rights:

It’s kind of ironic [but] I think kids are hungry today for some absolute values. They are raised in so much relativism. Animal rights offer a clear right and wrong.

On the consequences of the animal rights philosophy:

Let me give you an example. There was a woman who was jogging in Los Angeles and she was brought down by a cougar. And they went out and shot the cougar because of human safety concerns. And a lot of money was raised for the offspring—of the cougar! More money was raised for the cubs of the dead cougar than for the children of the dead woman.

On the irrationality of rejecting human exceptionalism:

There’s an irrationality in the whole idea of animal rights, because they are basically saying that substantial benefits to our species should be sacrificed for the higher moral purpose of not injuring, abusing and interfering with the natural lives of animals. But that is an act of human exceptionalism. It’s engaging in moral and ethical thinking, which only humans are capable of.

On the bottom line:

The animal rights movement is irrational because if animals had rights, the only species that would be required to honor those rights would be people. Animals would not have an obligation to honor each other’s rights because they don’t understand the concept. Nor do they have the obligation to honor our rights, because they don’t have the capacity to understand the concept. Animals cannot be rights-bearing beings because they are not duties-bearing beings. They’re amoral.

Back in the day I was a person who tended to believe that animals were on par with humans. As my understanding of humanity’s special relationship with God grew I was able to see the fallacy and the danger in confusing humane treatment of animals with the rights afforded to humans.

It is because we were made in the image and likeness of God that we often feel great compassion towards lesser creatures. Yet it is this same compassion that the Enemy uses against us in order to perpetrate the lie that humans are inherently destructive thus creating a self-loathing that allows human persons to care more for creatures that do not have an immortal soul at the cost of our own.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s