Yes

by Brandon Michael Davis

Created on: June 16, 2007   Last Updated: September 20, 2011

The term “animal rights” is not synonymous with animal welfare, and doesn’t strictly relate to current animal anti-cruelty statutes. Animal rights activism is about animals having rights equal to human rights. This position is inherently wrong.

To best understand why animal rights go too far, we must first examine what the animal rights movement believes and explore why these beliefs are inherently faulty.

The Animal Rights Movement

Animal rights activism has been around for a long time—the modern movement began early in the nineteenth century in England, and within a few decades spread to America.

But this early activism focused on protecting the welfare of animals, whereas the revitalized movement of the mid-twentieth century changed the focus from stewardship to coequality—animals are equal to humans and deserve the same rights. These rights, they content, are natural and intrinsic (for a more detailed history, see David Walls “Animal Rights Movement”).

This mood—that animals should be considered coequal to humans—is perhaps best summed up by the animal activist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA):

“Animals Are Not Ours to Eat
Animals Are Not Ours to Wear
Animals Are Not Ours to Experiment On
Animals Are Not Ours to Use for Entertainment
Animals Are Not Ours to Abuse in Any Way”

The underlying philosophy here is that animals suffer—just like people—and therefore are to be considered equally. This philosophy was made popular through Jeremy Bentham, and has been adopted by animal rights activists as a major part of the foundation for their belief system.

While most people would agree that animals should be treated respectfully, many would disagree with the basic tenets of animal rights activism.

For instance, PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.” Few people would place the same value on a rat that they would on a child. But this, says PETA, is prejudice:

“Only prejudice allows us to deny others the rights that we expect to have for ourselves. Whether it’s based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or species, prejudice is morally unacceptable” (Why Animal Rights?).

So the question is, Is it true that prejudice against a species is as damning as prejudice against a person’s ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation? The answer is a definitive no, and can best be argued by identifying a fundamental error in the animal rights paradigm.

The Evolution Problem

While animal activism does not require a belief in evolution, the basic assumptions of the animal rights movement are essentially evolutionary. The belief in evolution produces a view of humans as simply animal—humans are not specially created beings, and no animal is inherently more valuable than any other because all animals come from the same primordial soup.

But their overall line of thinking fails to fit this evolutionary model. Animal rights activists argue that the human race is obligated to consider humans and nonhuman animals equally. But within the animal kingdom, there is a hierarchy of dominance called the food chain. Animals eat other animals. And given the chance, a species will dominate any competition. This they call survival of the fittest.

If we are nothing special—just animals—shouldn’t these natural rules apply to us? Animal rights activists want us to believe that we should be considered equal to animals, yet we must at the same time be better than animals—refusing to eat them for sake of morality. You can’t have your vegan cake and eat it too.

If animal rights activists were serious, they’d propose a ban on all forms of carnivorous acts, human and nonhuman alike—after all, “every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering” (Why Animal Rights?).

The Biblical Paradigm

The animal rights movement’s paradigm is inherently flawed—not because it is founded on evolution (though naturalistic evolution isn’t possible), but because it deviates from the logical end of a belief in evolution. If they truly believed in naturalistic evolution, they’d have no basis for any moral assumptions and no reason not to eat whatever tastes best.

So does the failed animal rights movement paradigm mean humans can do whatever they want to animals? By no means!

The Bible clearly explains man’s relationship to the earth and all that lives upon it.

In Genesis 1:26-31; 2:15, the Bible reveals man’s relationship to the rest of creation. God commands mankind to act as stewards of the earth. This puts the responsibility of caring for the earth’s resources, plants, and animals in our hands. But God didn’t just command stewardship—He gave authority, or dominion, to man.

Humans are not animals—we are made in God’s image, complete with a mind, will, emotive center, and eternal soul. Animals are different—governed by definite instincts.

Humans have been given authority from God over animals, but we are also commanded to exercise stewardship over them. We must respect animals and carefully manage them, but we are free to use them for subsistence.

Current Anti-Cruelty Laws

While animal protection laws vary from state to state, most are reasonable. But some states seem especially harsh towards animal cruelty—classifying animal abuse and neglect at basically the same level as assault, child-abuse, or child-neglect.

In California, for example, “anyone who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal, or maliciously and intentionally kills an animal, is guilty of an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.”

Also in California, it is illegal to “tether, fasten, chain, tie, or restrain a dog, or cause a dog to be tethered, fastened, chained, tied, or restrained, to a dog house, tree, fence, or any other stationary object.”

Illinois treats animal cruelty as “a Class B misdemeanor for the first offense and a second or subsequent violation is a Class 4 felony with every day that a violation continues constituting a separate offense.” A Class 4 felony in Illinois is punishable by 1 to 3 years in State Penitentiary and/or a fine of up to $25,000.

(For a comprehensive guide to state animal protection laws, visit the Michigan State University Animal Legal & Historical Center.)

Conclusion

Malicious and intentional maiming or killing of an animal is a serious offense and deserves a serious punishment. But should domesticated livestock be protected from the butcher? Or should deer, elk, and other game species be protected against hunters? Animal rights activists would say yes—and this goes too far.

Animals are not equal to humans—they were created for humans to use for our subsistence, but our dominion over them comes with the responsibility to care and manage them.

The ideology of the animal rights movement is fundamentally flawed—humans cannot both be equal with other animals and be expected to be morally superior to them. Either we are animals and are governed by the same rule: survival of the fittest; or we are above animals and exercise dominion over them. Either way, the animal rights paradigm fails.

Unfortunately, an illogical paradigm hasn’t stopped the animal rights movement from infiltrating the media, popular opinion, the legal world, and the political institutions. Animal rights have gone too far, and we can only hope that common sense will prevail.

Additional Works Consulted

“Illinois Criminal Code and Laws.” Illinois Criminal Defense Lawyer. http://www.myillinoi sdefenselawyer.com/i llinois-criminal-cod e-and-laws/. Accessed September 2011.

Margit Livingston. “Desecrating the Ark: Animal Abuse and the Law’s Role in Prevention.” Iowa State University: Iowa Law Review. 2001. http://www.animallaw .info/articles/arus8 7iowalrev1.htm. Accessed September 2011.

Learn more about this author, Brandon Michael Davis.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.