“Animals are people, too. Animal radio!” So goes the jingle on XM’s Animal Radio station, and they are not the only ones making this outrageous claim. Billboards all over Arizona say, “Animals are children, too. Love them. Don’t abandon them.” More and more, our culture in America is elevating animals to the level of human beings. You can go to the grocery store today and find greeting cards to send to your pets. As if that were not weird enough, you can also buy greeting cards from your pets to you! At a frozen yogurt shop in Fountain Hills, AZ, they had an entire assortment of frozen yogurt options for your dog or cat with flavors like “sardines” and “salmon.” Because animals are being so anthropomorphized, many people today are even calling for animals to have rights and liberties, or even to be declared as legal persons. This view is problematic at best and blasphemous at worst. Animals do not have consciousness or an eternal soul and therefore are not entitled to the same rights and freedoms as human beings.
With 2.3
billion professing Christians worldwide, the Bible is the most influential book
on philosophy and morality in the history of mankind, and it has a lot to say
about animals. For those of us who believe it is the word of God, it is the
final authority. In the Bible, there is a great distinction made between
animals and humans. After God created all the animals in Genesis 1, he said,
“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and 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.” Unlike the animals, man is made in the image of God, and has been given
dominion (lordship) over the animals on this planet.
Throughout
the Bible God kills animals indiscriminately and does not assign their lives
the same value he assigns to humans. For example, in Genesis 6, when God is
grieved by the sins of mankind, he decides to wipe out the world with a global
flood that kills almost all the animals, even though the animals themselves had
done nothing wrong. In Leviticus, he institutes a mandatory program of animal
sacrifice that involves killing and butchering a multitude of creatures. In the
Gospel of Mark, Jesus sends 2,000 pigs sailing off a cliff to drown in the sea
in order to save one person (Mark 5:1-17). Finally, in the book of Revelation,
God pours out his wrath on this earth once again, killing a tremendous number
of animals.
Despite
this overwhelming evidence from scripture, some would object to this view that
God doesn’t seem to care about the lives of animals by pointing to Bible verses
that would seem to indicate that he does. For example, in the book of
Deuteronomy, there are laws protecting animals and wildlife, such as the
admonition “not to muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn” (Deuteronomy 25:4)
or the command not to kill the mother bird if you find a nest containing eggs
or young birds (Deuteronomy 22:6). There is also the statement in Proverbs that
“a righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the
wicked are cruel.” (Proverbs 12:10). Another example is the famous statement by
Jesus about sparrows when he said, “Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?”
(Luke 12:6)
However,
upon closer examination, we see that none of these verses is actually teaching
that God cares about animals. In fact, this question is specifically addressed
in 1 Corinthians 9 9: “For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not
muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for
oxen? Or saith he it altogether for
our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this
is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that
thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.” Notice that the question is
asked, “Does God care about oxen?” The answer is that this was not said for the
sake of the oxen, but that there is “no doubt” that it said 100% (“altogether”)
for our sakes. It was not written to protect oxen whatsoever. Also, when we
examine the context of the bird’s nest command, we find that the reason given
for keeping the mother alive is “that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.” Similarly, when Christ gave
the illustration about the sparrows, he followed it up with, “Fear ye not therefore, ye are of
more value than many ,” showing his regard for humans, not sparrows.
In addition
to the biblical argument, there are also many practical arguments against
considering animals as persons or giving them the rights and freedoms that
people enjoy. In 2014, a lawsuit was filed by the Nonhuman Rights Project suing
for the freedom of a chimpanzee. The same organization had also tried to win
legal rights for apes, elephants, dolphins, and whales. The court ruled
unanimously that since chimpanzees are not legal persons, they are not entitled
to freedom. The Nonhuman Rights Project claimed that since chimpanzees exhibit
highly complex cognitive functions, they should be considered persons and
accorded similar rights. They essentially sought to redefine the legal
definition of a “person.” One problem with declaring chimpanzees to be
“persons” is that Chimpanzees have no concept of right and wrong or morality,
and so nothing would stop them from killing, stealing from, or harming others.
Since chimpanzees are not capable of fulfilling societal responsibilities, and
since they are not held accountable when they break the rules of civilized
society, declaring them to be “persons” is very problematic.
Advocates
of granting personhood to animals believe that animals are sentient beings with
conscious feelings. In fact, the vast majority of people who
don’t believe in giving personhood to animals also hold this view of animal
sentience. However, there is an alternative view that should be considered,
which was famously put forth by French philosopher and scientist René Descartes
in the 17th century. Descartes argued that an animal is like a “machine” or an
automaton. He acknowledged that animals have sensations and
emotions, but he argued that their emotions are just a result of the way they
are “programmed” to feel. In that sense, they are similar to “machines,” or as
we would put it today, they are like robots or artificial intelligences. They
are simply the products of their inherited instincts and biology and not the
possessors of eternal souls or spirits.
For those who argue for animal
consciousness, the question of which animals are conscious must be answered.
Where do we draw the line? Are snails and roaches sentient, or only whales and
chimpanzees? Is the distinction between mammals and non-mammals? Is the
distinction between warm-blooded and cold-blooded animals? From a biblical
perspective, the line is drawn between humans and animals, but from an animal
rights perspective, some other line must be drawn. Animal Welfare Acts passed
in the United States do not protect all animals. They exclude mice, rats,
birds, cold-blooded animals, and many others. There must be some
authority by which the decision is made as to which animals are conscious and
which are not.
Another issue with granting
personhood to animals is the question of whether it is ethical to harm animals
for the benefit of people. If someone truly believes that animals have equal
value to humans, then logically they would not be able to justify eating animal
meat or wearing animal based textiles. Not only that, but if they truly believe
that “meat is murder,” they would have to make it against the law for anyone to eat meat. Medical studies and
testing done on animals also come into question. People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals argue
that many animal tests are not required by law and even provide false or
misleading data about the effects of products on humans. They believe that
animal testing is immoral, a waste of money, and not beneficial to humans in
any way. Those in favor of animal testing have cited vaccines against
Typhus, yellow fever, and polio, as medical advances that would have been impossible
without the use of animal testing.
Whether
or not we believe in the personhood of animals makes a big difference in our
everyday lives. It impacts our diet, our clothing choices, our medical choices,
and the way that we view our pets and the pets of others. Whatever the
conclusion we come to, it will have a profound effect on our life decisions if
we actually think these things through and are consistent in the application of
our beliefs.
While
my belief that animals are not on the level of people affects the way I live my
life, it does not mean that I mistreat or am cruel to animals. I believe that
we should treat animals humanely for our own sakes, not for the sake of the
animal. Being cruel to animals is harmful to the person carrying out the
cruelty. If a person enjoys hurting animals, it is likely that they lack normal
human empathy. People who torture animals are sometimes even disturbed
individuals who will later graduate to harming humans. Even though animals are
not people and are not eternal, they are here on this earth for our benefit and
enjoyment, and we would do well for ourselves to treat them humanely and
decently. As scripture says, “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast:
but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” Click here to hear my sermon on this subject.