Feed the Animals...But Not the Children?

So I’m taking an Ethics class and yesterday we got into an interesting discussion about whether or not animals have rights. The professor asked if we thought animals had feelings, beliefs, and if we (as humans) were obliged to treat them with respect.

Well, before I have PETA, some other animal rights group, or a mob of angry bloggers on my tail, let me preface my entire argument by saying that I do not condone the random abuse of animals; however, if I need to eat, or the matter depends on saving a human life, guess who’s going to win?

My classmates had some interesting points, none of which were strong enough to convince me that animals have rights – certainly not those equivalent to that of a human being. One argument presented was a question of whether or not animals are less valuable than people because they can not do everything a human can, and if that’s the case, what about humans who can’t do everything other humans can? I answer this simply by saying, “Yes, animals are less valuable, but humans who can not perform in a manner similar to other humans are not (less valuable).” Why you ask? I will tell you why.

The whole animal rights debate can very easily be answered by looking at it from a biological standpoint. Humans are Homo sapiens, as a matter of fact; the genus “homo” has only ever applied to a classification of beings with specific characteristics. Take Homo habilis (handy man), Homo ergaster (working man), Homo erectus (upright man), Homo heidelbergensis (Heidelberg man), Homo neanderthalensis (neanderthal man), and Homo sapien (wise man, or what we know as modern man) for example, they have all been “man” and possess higher order capabilities than that of any other genus, or animalia in the Kingdom classification. We walk upright, have highly developed brains, and have the capacity for abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and problem solving. Additionally, “man” is uniquely adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression and exchanging ideas; we share histories, and use advanced tools; therefore, we are unlike any other being.

That said, anything that is not Homo --fill in the blank--, is not [hu]man and therefore does not get awarded the same value of life or rights that “man” does, regardless of whether that “man” can perform in a capacity similar to that of other [hu]man(s). The point is, they are [hu]man and this classification thus helps clear up any subsequent “sticky” issues.

Example A: Do people on respirators, life support, etc. have rights?

Answer: Yes, because they are [hu]man or Homo sapiens (whichever you prefer).

Example B: Animals are shown to have judgment, but a baby does not have judgment capabilities yet, so is the animal not more capable than the baby?

Answer: No, because the animal is not [hu]man or Homo sapien and the baby will eventually grow into those capabilities, but even if it doesn't, then it is still [hu]man.

See where this is going?

Example C: People say that apes, dolphins, pigs, (interject your animal of preference here), and other animals are very smart, capable of learning things, and have similar DNA to humans in many ways.

Answer: Similar, but not the same DNA…they are not Homo sapiens.

For those of you who need/want a “religious” argument, Genesis 1:26-28 says “And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' So God created man in His own image…and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'” Translation? We run this, not animals.

All this brings me to the point that we have no moral obligations to nonhuman animals. I know that every once in a while we hear on the news of some heroic dog/wildebeest (tomAto/tomahto) that dragged it’s unconscious owners out of a burning building while also piloting an about-to-crash plane and saves everyone involved; however, if we need to eat them to survive, so be it. If we need to use them to test something to survive, again, so be it. I am not saying go outside and kill your neighbor’s dog, or even your own dog…but my dog (if I had one) would not be riding shotgun, eating off my table, or even sleeping in my bed.

I know you have all seen that ridiculous ‘save the animals’ commercial with that sad-eyed cat were Sarah McLachlan’s “Angel” is playing in the background. I HATE that commercial. There are starving children, and you want me to donate money to save some sick CAT? Unbelievable. I change the channel every time. Animals are not people. Think about it, ‘cause I’ve got one hand in my pocket, and the other one is petting my fur coat.

Feed the Animals...But Not the Children?

You need to be a member of 20 Something Bloggers to add comments!

Welcome to 20 Something Bloggers!