Going Ape
"There is no sound moral reason why possession of basic rights should be limited to members of a particular species."
Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics, Princeton University (1)
"The pre-eminence of man over beast is nothing since all is vain (hovel)"
Koheles (Ecclesiastes) 3:19
Professor Singer is a co-founder of the Great Ape Project, an international effort to protect the great apes (2) from "abuse, torture and death." A resolution now pending in the parliament of Spain supports this Project, and would ban the use of apes for harmful experimentation, circuses, TV commercials and films. The resolution calls for protection for "our non-human brothers."
If, as the atheists maintain, the existence of Man is a mere evolutionary accident (along with the existence of the entire universe), then Man is indeed nothing more than the smarter brother of the ape, and the cousin of the wolverine and distant relative of the flatworm and amoeba.
This worldview leads to two very different attitudes:
1. Since all of life is nothing but the struggle for survival, it is only natural for the stronger to oppress the weaker. For example, if a person derives pleasure from torturing an animal, he should feel no moral compunctions about doing so to his heart's content. This is not mere supposition: in pagan Rome both humans and animals were tortured and killed for the amusement of huge crowds of spectators. The bull-fights that are legal today in Spain (and other Hispanic countries) are vestiges of these ancient practices.
In recent memory, the Nazis carried this concept but one step further by decreeing some people (Jews) were not human at all, and therefore could be massacred with impunity.
2. Since animals differ from humans in only some superficial respects, it is just as morally wrong to harm or kill animals as to do so to other human beings. This is essentially the position of Professor Singer and animal-rights groups such as People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). The Spanish legislators who are pushing the Great Ape Bill are probably against bull-fights, too, but are not likely to stop them any time soon.
In the United States it is illegal to arrange fights between dogs (just ask Michael Vick), but it is still legal to arrange them between people, under certain legal constraints. (3) State laws also prohibit torturing animals, and there have been efforts from time to time to ban kosher slaughter as deliberately causing pain to the victims.
The most extreme animal-rights activists ultimately seek to ban the use of animals for meat, fur, or even medical experiments. Some have even broken into laboratories and "liberated" the subjects from their cages.
Attitude Number One above has been out of favor in the civilized world since the end of World War II, but Number Two seems to be gaining adherents around the world. This is because once one has accepted the premise that we humans are nothing but well-adapted animals, it stands to reason that we should not consider ourselves superior to other species and use them for our benefit. The rise of vegetarianism in the US is partly attributable to this new attitude.
I believe that the most effective refutation of Attitude Two is the Torah, which proclaims that mankind exists because of the will of God, not chance. In a Torah-based perspective, while human beings and other species share a biological nature (4), Man alone has also been endowed with an immortal soul. In this view, Man exists in both a physical dimension (along with all other life and inanimate matter) and a spiritual dimension (which is linked to the Shechina, the Divine Presence.)
Torah commands the use of certain animals for korbonos (Temple sacrifices) and permits them for food, but forbids causing them to feel pain. For this reason, a knife used for kosher slaughter most be totally smooth, lest a nick in the blade hurt the animal. Animals used by Jews for work must be given the Sabbath off, just like human workers. In the Torah worldview, animals are subordinate to humans, but the latter must recognize the former as sentient beings and fellow creatures of the Almighty.
And so, this Friday night I will eat my cousin the chicken, but I will not ask Prof. Singer to be my guest, as I would not want him to violate his principles.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) "Why they're called human rights in the first place" by Russell Paul LeValle in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, August 4, 2008, page 9A.
(2) Gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, and orangutangs.
(3) Boxing matches between children are legal in some states, with parent's consent, but not "ultimate fights". Senator McCain wants to ban the latter even for adults!
(4) For example human and ape DNA are about 99% the same.
Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics, Princeton University (1)
"The pre-eminence of man over beast is nothing since all is vain (hovel)"
Koheles (Ecclesiastes) 3:19
Professor Singer is a co-founder of the Great Ape Project, an international effort to protect the great apes (2) from "abuse, torture and death." A resolution now pending in the parliament of Spain supports this Project, and would ban the use of apes for harmful experimentation, circuses, TV commercials and films. The resolution calls for protection for "our non-human brothers."
If, as the atheists maintain, the existence of Man is a mere evolutionary accident (along with the existence of the entire universe), then Man is indeed nothing more than the smarter brother of the ape, and the cousin of the wolverine and distant relative of the flatworm and amoeba.
This worldview leads to two very different attitudes:
1. Since all of life is nothing but the struggle for survival, it is only natural for the stronger to oppress the weaker. For example, if a person derives pleasure from torturing an animal, he should feel no moral compunctions about doing so to his heart's content. This is not mere supposition: in pagan Rome both humans and animals were tortured and killed for the amusement of huge crowds of spectators. The bull-fights that are legal today in Spain (and other Hispanic countries) are vestiges of these ancient practices.
In recent memory, the Nazis carried this concept but one step further by decreeing some people (Jews) were not human at all, and therefore could be massacred with impunity.
2. Since animals differ from humans in only some superficial respects, it is just as morally wrong to harm or kill animals as to do so to other human beings. This is essentially the position of Professor Singer and animal-rights groups such as People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). The Spanish legislators who are pushing the Great Ape Bill are probably against bull-fights, too, but are not likely to stop them any time soon.
In the United States it is illegal to arrange fights between dogs (just ask Michael Vick), but it is still legal to arrange them between people, under certain legal constraints. (3) State laws also prohibit torturing animals, and there have been efforts from time to time to ban kosher slaughter as deliberately causing pain to the victims.
The most extreme animal-rights activists ultimately seek to ban the use of animals for meat, fur, or even medical experiments. Some have even broken into laboratories and "liberated" the subjects from their cages.
Attitude Number One above has been out of favor in the civilized world since the end of World War II, but Number Two seems to be gaining adherents around the world. This is because once one has accepted the premise that we humans are nothing but well-adapted animals, it stands to reason that we should not consider ourselves superior to other species and use them for our benefit. The rise of vegetarianism in the US is partly attributable to this new attitude.
I believe that the most effective refutation of Attitude Two is the Torah, which proclaims that mankind exists because of the will of God, not chance. In a Torah-based perspective, while human beings and other species share a biological nature (4), Man alone has also been endowed with an immortal soul. In this view, Man exists in both a physical dimension (along with all other life and inanimate matter) and a spiritual dimension (which is linked to the Shechina, the Divine Presence.)
Torah commands the use of certain animals for korbonos (Temple sacrifices) and permits them for food, but forbids causing them to feel pain. For this reason, a knife used for kosher slaughter most be totally smooth, lest a nick in the blade hurt the animal. Animals used by Jews for work must be given the Sabbath off, just like human workers. In the Torah worldview, animals are subordinate to humans, but the latter must recognize the former as sentient beings and fellow creatures of the Almighty.
And so, this Friday night I will eat my cousin the chicken, but I will not ask Prof. Singer to be my guest, as I would not want him to violate his principles.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) "Why they're called human rights in the first place" by Russell Paul LeValle in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, August 4, 2008, page 9A.
(2) Gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, and orangutangs.
(3) Boxing matches between children are legal in some states, with parent's consent, but not "ultimate fights". Senator McCain wants to ban the latter even for adults!
(4) For example human and ape DNA are about 99% the same.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 9:17 AM
8 comments
