A specious argument about speciesism

The Ottawa Citizen

Peter Singer, the well-known Princeton University ethicist and philosophical godfather of the animal rights movement, told delegates at a recent animal rights conference in Washington, D.C. that Christianity is to blame for the mistreatment of animals. Judeo-Christian teachings that animals do not have souls like humans promotes "speciesism" — a belief that humans are superior to other beings — and creates "a very negative influence on the way in which we think about animals." Mr. Singer contends there should be only the narrowest legal gap between human and animal rights.

At first glance, you might think this elevation of animals to equal status with humans is highly moral and, well, humanistic. In fact, though, Mr. Singer — and the animal-rights movement as a whole — reflects the latest episode in a long history of attempts to degrade humanity.

In the 18th century, for example, the French philosopher Julien Offray de la Mettrie argued that, since all living creatures are essentially machines, the only real difference between humans and animals is the complexity of their "mechanisms." Since the 19th century, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has been extrapolated into an ontological claim about human nature that asserts there is little to justify human claims for superiority over animals.

Biologically, of course, the gap between humans and the higher animals is narrow. But the real issue is the political motive behind this latest effort at the equality of beings. Superficially, the animal rights movement is merely being anti-Christian. But at a deeper level, as American philosopher David Carlin has observed, the movement betrays a strong animosity toward the view of human nature taken by both biblical religion and the classical schools of philosophy, Platonism and Stoicism, that form the bedrock of western civilization.

The idea that man is made in the image of God may be biblical, but it also expresses the anthropology of Plato and the Stoics. The puzzling desire to reduce humans to the level of animals is an assault, as Mr. Carlin says, on "an exalted conception of human nature" that has produced a civilization of freedom, democracy and rights (including animal rights).

Undoubtedly, most animal rights supporters are motivated by concern for animals. But ideologies often produce results that contradict their best intentions: Think of communism, which, despite its humanist pedigree, produced tyranny and genocide. In this regard, animal rights activists must be challenged on the intellectual coherence of their claims. Indeed, there is one question we'd like to put to Mr. Singer: Has he ever known an animal to promote human rights?