Going ape about human rights
Are monkeys people, too?
by Lita Cosner
Photo stock.xchng
The environmental committee in the Spanish parliament
recently passed a resolution giving apes the right to life and freedom.
The legislation, expected to pass with bi-partisan support, would prohibit using
apes in circuses or filming, and outlaw the use of great apes in ‘harmful’
experimentation. The resolution encourages involvement with the
Great Ape Project, founded by Peter Singer and Paola Cavalieri, an organization
that believes that ‘non-human hominids’ should enjoy many of the same
rights as people.
On another front, Paula Stibbe
appealed to an Austrian court to declare ‘Matthew’, a 26-year-old
chimpanzee, a person so that he could have a guardian to look after his interests
in case the animal sanctuary where he lives is forced to close due to bankruptcy.
The Austrian court ruled against Stibbe without commenting on whether primates could
be declared persons. Stibbe is appealing the case to the European Court of Human
Rights. Stibbe insists that she is not trying to have Matthew declared a human,
but a person, apparently on the grounds that, ‘Everybody who knows him personally
will see him as a person.’ Personification of animals that one is fond of
is nothing new; but it’s hardly a legal or rational argument.
Evolutionary basis
Photo stock.xpert
The idea that some human rights should be granted to some animals is not a revolutionary
idea; Singer was advocating extending traditionally human rights to animals as far
back as Practical Ethics in 1979. Recently, however, it has gained a new
respectability based on the similarity between human and ape DNA. An
article on the GAP site claims that humans and chimps have only 0.5% to
1.25% difference in DNA. In reality, humans and apes probably share
closer to 95% DNA similarity.
The argument of the animal rights proponents is that apes are our closest evolutionary
relations; the differences between us and them are only differences of degree, not
kind. After all, a few million years ago, we may have had the same ancestor. If
apes are our cousins a few thousand times removed, then don’t they have just
as many rights as we do?
Some animal rights organizations go even farther. Ingrid Newkirk of PETA (the misnamed
‘People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’) made the infamous statement
“a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy,” and said that “it is only
human supremacy, which is as racism and sexism, that makes us afraid of being more
inclusive.” Singer agrees, provocatively labeling as ‘speciesism’
the idea that humans have innate differences from animals, giving us rights they
don’t have. But why did Newkirk stop at rats and pigs and dogs, and why does
the Great Ape Project only lobby for the rights of apes? Why is it not, ‘an
amoeba is a flea is a cockroach is a rat ’? After all, if we are all
related by evolution, and that relationship entitles them to the same rights as
us, then we would be evil for denying rights to some animals just because they repulse
us. Indeed, being repulsed by a cockroach, or even thinking that humans are more valuable than a colony of bacteria wiped out by antibiotics, might be the ultimate example of ‘speciesism’.
Photo by David Shankbone Wikipedia.com
Ingrid Newkirk
Even the the anti-Christian (and certainly anticreationist) magazine New Scientist long ago took a stand against
giving apes rights based on DNA similarity, pointing out that even though we share
a lot of DNA in common with apes, genes aren’t ‘cake recipes’
and that a few genes can amount to a large difference. Animal rights’ supporters
also exaggerate simian achievements in the areas of
art and language
to argue that apes ‘enjoy a rich emotional and cultural existence’,
in the words of the GAP site. However, even non-creationist scientists who study
ape behavior say that there is an ‘unbridgeable
gap’ between apes and humans—the
signs made by apes are nothing like the grammatical languages of humans.
The interesting thing about the animal rights’ activists is that they appeal
to evolutionary arguments to say we should treat apes kindly, but they have no evolutionary
basis to say so. If natural selection declares humans the more fit, what reason
is there under their belief
system to preserve a less fit life form?
Animal rights v animal welfare
Animal welfare is about treating animals humanely. The animal rights lobby goes
much further, in wanting to give animals the same rights as humans. But many animal
rights groups deceive donors into thinking that they merely support animal welfare.
As G.K. Chesterton pointed out,
evolutionists can argue from their belief system that we should be insanely sentimental
or incredibly cruel to the rest of creation, but it can never be used to promote
a sane view of nature, that of responsible stewardship that is part of
a biblical worldview. Christians have traditionally opposed cruelty to animals;
the SPCA (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) was founded by
William Wilberforce, an evangelical Christian better-known for his role
in the abolition of the slave
trade in England.
But this was an example of animal welfare, which is about treating animals
humanely. The animal rights lobby goes much further, in wanting to give
animals the same rights as humans. But many animal rights groups deceive donors
into thinking that they merely support animal welfare.
In practice, people who want to put humans and animals on the same plane do so by
degrading humans, not by exalting animals. The result is people like Singer who
deem apes deserving of some human rights that they would deny to unborn (and even
humans after birth). In a strangely Orwellian paradox, in their mind, some animals
are people, but some humans aren’t. So it is not surprising that
Singer supports infanticide and euthanasia.
The fascist predecessors of the animal rights movement
The Nazi movement was also based on evolution, as thoroughly documented by Richard
Weikart in his 2004 book From Darwin to Hitler (see
review). So it is not surprising that there is a chilling similarity between
some of their ideas and those of modern evolutionists today (see also
Dawkins and Eugenics). This is not to say that animal rights activists were
inspired by Nazis; rather, when people are inspired by the same philosophy, it should
not be surprising that they come up with similar ideas.
In practice, people who want to put humans and animals on the same plane do so by
degrading humans, not by exalting animals. The result is people like Singer who
deem apes deserving of some human rights that they would deny to human babies and
old people.
Indeed, many leaders in Nazi Germany were dedicated animal rights activists as well.
The following quote sounds like it could come from Singer or Newkirk: ‘How
can you find pleasure in shooting from behind cover at poor creatures browsing on
the edge of a wood, innocent, defenseless, and unsuspecting? It’s really pure
murder.’ In reality, it came from Heinrich Himmler. Hermann Göring, in
the same vein, prohibited ‘the unbearable torture and suffering in animal
experiments,’ and intimidated ‘those who still think they can treat
animals as inanimate property’ with threats of internment in concentration
camps.1
Closer to our day, PETA has
compared eating chickens with participating in the Nazi Holocaust (which
was evolution-inspired).
And Newkirk protested to Yasser Arafat because a terrorist attack used a donkey
strapped with explosives—but she said it was not her business to protest against
the innocent human lives lost in suicide bombings, just to ‘leave
the animals out of this conflict’. So once again, elevating animals really
amounts to trivializing atrocities against humans.
Dominion mandate
Photo iStockphoto
Unlike the animals, humans were created ‘in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:27), and commanded to exercise dominion over Creation.
The word that is translated ‘dominion’ (רדה radah)
in Genesis 1:28 is the same word that is used for Solomon’s
peaceful dominion over neighboring territories in 1 Kings 4:24. Both the Old and New Testament command people
to regard the needs of animals; Proverbs 12:10 says, ‘A righteous man has regard for
the life of his animal.’ Under the Mosaic law, animals as well as people were
to participate in Sabbath rest (Deuteronomy 5:14). In several places in the Gospels, Jesus
points out that Pharisees do ‘work’ on the Sabbath for their animals’
welfare (Matthew 12:10–12, Luke 13:15-16), implicitly agreeing that the welfare
of animals is more important than legalistic observation of the Sabbath; in each
instance, he is criticizing them for being more humane to their animals than to
their fellow humans!
The Biblical teaching about animal rights is clear: we should care for animals and
treat them humanely by having responsible dominion over them. We are permitted to
use them for our own purposes, but we are not to be cruel to them. The difference
between humans and animals is not only of degree, but of kind, and ignoring or downplaying
those differences leads to devaluing human life instead of greater respect for animals.
Lack of understanding of the Dominion Mandate is responsible for the secular world’s
obscuring the difference between animals rights and animal welfare.
Related articles
Further reading
Related resources
References
- Cited in: Goldberg, J. Liberal Fascism, p. 386. New York:
Doubleday, 2007. Return to text.
Published: 9 July 2008(GMT+10)
|
