Animal Rights?

“Animal welfare theories accept that animals have interests but allow these interests to be traded away as long as there are some human benefits that are thought to justify that sacrifice.
Animal rights means that animals, like humans, have interests that cannot be sacrificed or traded away just because it might benefit others. However, the rights position does not hold that rights are absolute; an animal’s rights, just like those of humans, must be limited, and rights can certainly conflict. Animal rights means that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation. Animal welfare allows these uses as long as "humane" guidelines are followed.”

-www.peta.org/about/faq/What-is-the-difference-between-animal-rights-and-animal-welfare.aspx

As you can see here, PETA believes that animals have rights just like us and thus are not ours to use for food, clothing, etc. However, if you use a little logic you can see that the claim that animals have rights is nearly ludicrous. The logic is slightly different depending on your worldview. As there are essentially only two worldview types, I will give two sets of logic.

Before I begin, however, I think we need to define cruelty.

Cruelty: “Barbarous deed; any act of a human being which inflicts unnecessary pain; any act intended to torment, vex or afflict, or which actually torments or afflicts, without necessity; wrong; injustice; oppression.”

(American Dictionary of the English Language by Noah Webster. 1828)

Ranchers, feedlots, and slaughterhouses are always improving their animal handling techniques to minimize or eliminate animal suffering and are therefore not cruel. We do not want our animals to suffer.

Now, back to my response to PETA’s claim of animal rights:

The first argument assumes that you believe (as I do) that God created the earth and everything in it, including animals and us. He told Adam “Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”(Genesis 1:28) This passage shows that animals are ours to use. Does that mean we can do whatever we want to them? That cruelty is acceptable? NO! We must be good stewards of the land and the animals. When God created the earth everything, including tigers, wolves, sharks and us, was vegetarian. Then man sinned and was banished from the Garden of Eden. Since then, animals have eaten other animals and humans have eaten animals and used them for labor and companions.

The second argument assumes that you believe (as does a large portion of the population) that the earth, and everything in it, evolved over the course of billions of years. If this is what you believe then the logic is quite simple. According to this theory, humans are just animals, very advanced animals to be sure, but animals nonetheless. If so then it is OK for us to eat other animals because we are just predators. A key part of the evolution theory is the rule “survival of the fittest” and we are the fittest. Still not convinced? Then why doesn’t PETA stand up for the rights of a rabbit that is running for its life from a coyote and capture the coyote to “rehabilitate” him into a vegan? Because coyotes are predators and PETA understands that predators can’t survive on vegetables.

In conclusion, it doesn’t matter what you believe put us here, animals are an important food source for us and for other animals. PETA’s stance on animal rights is hypocritical and I hope they realize that someday. If you think eating animals is cruel because of the practices involved, feel free to make your voice heard to help correct the perceived problems. But the argument that animals have rights does not have substance unless you are putting coyotes on trial alongside humans for murdering rabbits. You have to be consistent in supporting your worldview. PETA is not.

Have a nice day!

Luke