I received a nice book review in the National Catholic Register, that focused on my primary purpose in writing–the defense and importance of human exceptionalism. From “When Dog Becomes God,” by John M. Grondelski (must register to open):
But, for me, the most valuable part of the book is Smith’s exposure of the anti-”human exceptionalism” philosophy that underlies “animal rights.” For Judaism, Christianity and Islam – the key forces that shaped the West – man is not a pig or a dog or any other beast. Yet the paradox is that “animal rights” devolves not into a “respect for all life,” but actually lays the foundation for “quality of life” judgments: It’s still safer to be a seal fetus than an unborn baby.
Not that Smith denigrates animals. He is clear to distinguish between “animal welfare” – something that he supports – and “animal rights,” something he rightly regards as intellectual chicanery. While admitting that sometimes “animal rights” activists have advanced animal welfare, he also notes they have sometimes drainedresources away in favor of their agenda. “For … us who love animals … but also recognize that our obligation to humanity matters even more – let us strive continually to improve our treatment of animals as we also promote human prosperity and health. First and foremost, this means rejecting out of hand all moral equivalences between human beings and animals.”
Noting correctly that I don’t deeply explore the religious aspects of the question, Grondelski concludes:
One could quibble with some parts of the book, e.g., does Smith really consider the comprehensive “sanctity of life” ethic in some Eastern religions (like ahimsa in Jainism)? Of course, those traditions did not form the Western view of man’s dignity. That said, the thrust of Smith’s analysis is right on target and is particularly relevant given the tendency in some parts of the “green movement” to anthropomorphize and even apotheosize nature at human expense. Besides, he writes well. Recommended.
Thanks, John.
July 15th, 2010 | 7:48 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys and Lisa, AudiobooksUSA. AudiobooksUSA said: Book Review “Gets” Human Exceptionalism Message of A Rat is a Pig, etc. http://bit.ly/ao2lWq [...]
July 15th, 2010 | 8:52 pm
Here’s the principal problem, Wesley: the same logic that convinces you that animal welfare is legitimate, is the same logic that entails that you should accept animal rights. But you don’t.
Why do you accept animal welfare? Clearly because animals are conscious. Because their lives matter to them, because they can suffer, or experience pleasure. So their lives matter in the ethical scheme of things. But, logically, this commits you to animal rights.
July 15th, 2010 | 9:02 pm
If I could, while there’s much to praise in Wesley’s latest book, and is recoomended reading, one should always corroberate his claims, by referencing independent, objective sources. Just as Wesley argues, rightly, that many (or, perhaps all) animal rights groups have agendas, and are not to be relied on, exclusively, the same can be said of Wesley, and his book. As I’ve said, plenty of times, Wesley seems to me to be a decent, caring person, he’s frankly, just as biased as the animal rights groups, such as PETA. He has an ideological bias. I don’t think that he intentionally attempts to distort the evidence, he does have an ideological agenda, just like PETA, accept in reverse. Please consider this when reading his book.
July 17th, 2010 | 9:26 am
Animal welfare and animal rights are totally two different matters. Welfare has to do with our care of animals–if my cat is suffering or in pain, my instinct and the fact that I am a thinking human being tells me to help the cat. In other words, this has to do with being caretakers of Earth, of living things, being stewards and encouraging being rather than non-being.
Animal rights imply that animals have societal and ethical obligations. They don’t. I think it’s ridiculous that I have to say this but animals are not human beings. We are a distinct species!
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 17th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Emina: And exceptional. Indeed, it is our humanity that gives us a duty to treat animals humanely. They have no such duties to us or each other, because they are incapable inherently of assuming or being held accountable, to duties.
July 17th, 2010 | 9:49 pm
Emina: no one, at least I haven’t, on the animal rights side, has claimed that humans and animals are not different. And no one is claiming that animals have duties,or societal obligations. It’s silly that we have to keep covering this. The animal rights position is NOT that animals are no different than us, no animal created civilization, or came up with legal, ethical, or scientific systems. But animal rights legitimacy is not contingent on these variables, and no one has claimed otherwise. It is a curious, and indeed logically unfounded assertion, made frequently by the anti-animal rights crowd, that, in order to have rights, one must be capable of participating in social, moral, or legal systems. One principal logical mistake that’s made by the anti-animal rightists, is to assume that, in order to possess rights, one must have obligations, or duties, toward others, as if one’s rights are a sort of quid pro quo.
When one speaks or rights for animals, one is not claiming that they should have the same rights as us humans. That would be silly. Their rights should be congruent, and reflective, of those traits that they possess that are vulnerable, and that, in being taken away from them, would be detrimental to their well being, which would include, but not be necessarily limited to, the right to life, and free of bodily harm.
It’s my position, that, the animal welfare position, presupposes the legitimacy of the animal rights position. To be logically consistent, if one asserts that the animal welfare view is right, one is logically bound to accept the animal rights position.
The reason, I believe, that animal rights are rejected, is it would require humans to behave in a, well, forgive me, exceptional way, and give up exploiting them for our benefit.
July 18th, 2010 | 2:38 am
Emina: While I agree that the distinction between “animal rights” and “animal welfare” is an important one, Bret’s point is that our concessions towards animal welfare are based on our understanding that we have moral duties towards animals. The rights an individual possesses are ultimately based on the moral duties of others towards him or her – and not on any social or ethical obligations that this individual may himself be burdened with. We grant rights to several classes of people (infants etc) who themselves have no moral responsibilities towards others and this state of affairs seems to us not merely pragmatic but just. Those who assert that we ought to take our duties towards animals more seriously (either by framing them in the context of “rights” or of strengthening animal welfare laws) do so not because they believe other animals are human (no one does) but because they accept that some animals are capable of conscious awareness – that they, in their own fashion, are able to experiencing fear, grief, sadness and joy. Our “exceptionalism” demands that we take these claims seriously – no one else will.
We are, as you put it, “caretakers of the Earth” but this responsibility, it seems, is not taken very seriously. We are only prepared to “care for the Earth” if it is convenient. If it occasionally involves delaying plane flights, fractionally lowering GDPs or reducing the range of options available at the supermarket we are quick to retreat to the Fortress fo Human Exceptionalism and pull up the drawbridge. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that we ought to grant animals “rights” (in the legal sense) but we certainly need to do far more than we’re doing now.
July 18th, 2010 | 7:56 pm
Thanks, Raven, for putting it so well. I think that a lot of the resistence to raising the staus of animals from the animal welfare to the animal rights relhm (although you’re an exception to this. You clearly have shown that, even though you don’t believe that animals should have rights, you still believe that they should be treated much better than they currently are; a very admirable, respectable position), is that it would cause tremendous inconvienence, for us humans. That’s one thing we humans don’t like, is to be told we have to have restrictions. It amounts to selfishness, pure and simple. We LOVE to praise ourselves on how wonderful we all are, (evidence in point, Wesley’s tiresome, constant reference to “human exceptionalism”), but when it comes right down to it, humans can be shockingly immoral, for no other reason, than we’re going to have to experience a little pain. A very sad example of this, recently in the news, was of a homeless man, bleeding profusely, in the street, and large numbers of people walked by, without helping him!! Heaven forbid, they might be ten minutes late for work!
Certainly if animals had rights, we might have to get our food elsewhere, we can’t have that, we’re too exceptional!
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 18th, 2010 at 11:56 pm
Human exceptionalism doesn’t say we always act well. Obviously, we don’t. But only we know the difference. If you like human rights Bret, you had better embrace human exceptionalism, because without it, you will eventually be toast when/if you lose the attributes that those with power honor.
July 19th, 2010 | 12:15 am
I certainly understand your concerns,Wesley. But my position is only that we give a being what is fair, to give that being. Humans should be given what’s fair, but also other animals should be given what’s fair to them, which will vary, of course, depending on their needs. We humans have nothing to fear with this. The only ones who have anything to fear, are those who are taking what does’nt belong to them. Human Rights will always be as robust as they’ve always been, if animal rights are recognized.
There is, however, a legitimate concern, in that many, if not most, of those who support animal rights, I think it’s accurate to say, are on the extreme left end of the political spectrum, and support the dangerous notions of Peter Singer, Stephen Best, etc. They have a belief system that is totally against the rights of the unborn, the newborn, the aged, (where they argue for euthanasia). I completely reject these pernicious notions. So, I might be willing to concede that your’e right in the sense that, if THEIR ideas, regarding animal right s are adopted, we are definitely toast.
But there is another way. Animals can have their rights recognized, and we humans can still have all of the rights we’ve always had. It’s not as if there’s only so much room on the plate, and if animals are seen as having rights, human rights must necessarily slide off the plate. You have, to your credit, on more than a few occasions, stated that, treating animals kindly, and applying proper principles of animal welfare, are reflections of our human exceptionalism. Why not conclude, that, giving them rights, is a further development and reflection, of our human exceptionalism?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact