Lux Lucet

Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way. – People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Founded in 1980, Norfolk Virginia based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has long had a reputation as one of the more aggressive animal rights groups. PETA’s slogan, quoted above, describes as abuse actions that most people would consider quite normal. Such a radical criticism of normal everyday activities calls for close scrutiny. For if PETA is correct in what it says, then it is incumbent on people to rethink their relationship to the animal kingdom.

Not surprisingly from a group that has the word “ethical” in its name, PETA’s slogan is an ethical statement. Ethics is one of the four main disciplines of philosophy and answers the question, What ought we to do? It is the theory of right conduct. In the case of PETA, their ethical statement is put in the negative, telling us what we ought not to do, namely: use animals for food, clothing, laboratory experiments, entertainment or otherwise subject them to abuse.

On the PETA website, if one click’s on the slogan, he will taken to a page that explains in more detail what the PETA stands for and the reasons for the group’s position on animal rights. From a review of this page, it quickly becomes obvious that PETA is serious about what it says and is quite sincere in its ethical pronouncements.

But truth, unlike what so many people seem to think in this anti-intellectual age, is not a matter sincerity. One can be completely sincere in his beliefs and at the same time be totally wrong. What is the Christian to make of PETA’s ethics?

How do you know?

The Lord has used the works of Gordon Clark and John Robbins to open the eyes of many to his truth. One of the most important lessons one can take from reading these gentlemen is the importance of asking a simple yet profound question: How do you know? Anyone can make an ethical statement. But unless one can give a coherent account of how he arrived at his ethical position, there is no reason for anyone to listen to him.

This is simply another way of saying that ethical judgments are not fundamental, but rest on something more basic. That something is the philosophical discipline of epistemology. Of the four major branches of philosophy – epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and politics – epistemology is logically the first and most important. Epistemology answers the question, How do you know? If it can be shown that PETA’s epistemology is flawed, this will also constitute a refutation of its ethics.

The Darwinian Empiricists of PETA

On the page titled What PETA REALLY Stands For, the group lays out what it believes and why it believes it. And although PETA does not explicitly state its epistemology, it does clearly imply it. PETA tells us,

More than a century ago, Charles Darwin showed that all beings had the same common ancestor. All beings share the desire to live. We all feel pain, joy, grief, and pleasure. We all have worth.

Charles Darwin, along with many others, believed that our senses furnish us with knowledge about the world. He believed that man can discover truth by making observations using his eyes, ears, sense of touch, taste and feeling to collect data. That data can then be analyzed to draw from it true conclusions. This is what is known as empirical epistemology. Those who believe that the senses furnish us with knowledge are called empiricists. The saying “seeing is believing” is one popular expression of empiricism.

But while it may be common sense that “seeing is believing,” is this really the case? In reality, there are many problems with notion that our senses furnish us with knowledge. for one, probably all of us have been in situations where our eyes played tricks on us. We think we see water in the distance only to find out that it was a mirage. Objects appear to change color depending on the light that is used. The pitch of a locomotive’s horn seems to fall after it has passed us. These examples would suggest that the information coming to us through our senses may not be as reliable as we often think.

The interpretation of data is second issue for the scientist or philosopher who relies on sense perception as a source of truth. Even if by some miraculous occurrence a scientist were to come up with a completely reliable data set, there remains the problem of discerning what it means. Information does not speak for itself. After observing finches on the Galapagos islands, Darwin concluded that the speciation he observed was best explained by evolution due to chance mutations that occurred over a long period of time. Admittedly, evolution is one possible explanation for the variety of plant and animal life that exists on earth, but it is not the only interpretation of the data. The speciation we all see around us can just as easily be explained in an infinite number of other ways. And if there are an infinite number of ways to interpret a data set, then the odds of a scientist, no matter how brilliant, selecting the correct interpretation is zero. Please note, this is not my conclusion. This is the conclusion of Karl Popper, one of the 20th century’s greatest philosophers of science. Popper wrote, “It can even be shown that all [scientific] theories, even the best have the same probability, namely zero” (Conjectures and Refutations, 192).

Although man and animals do have a common creator, it is false to say, as do the Darwinists, that they have a common ancestor. And since Darwinism is false, it follows that all ethical systems built upon it, such as that of PETA, likewise are false. Further, if PETA’s ethical system is, as it must needs be, false, there is no compelling reason for anyone to take it seriously. It would seem that of all men, members of PETA are the most to be pitied.

A Few Side Issues

Although by its own empirical standards, PETA’s ethics must be false, there is still more that could and should be said about the ideas of this organization. To neglect to do so would be to leave several loose ends dangling in the minds of many. For that reason, it is important to examine PETA’s other assertions in the light of scripture, the only source of truth. With that, let us return to the What PETA REALLY Stands For page.

The distinction between man and animals in not arbitrary

Under the heading “People,” PETA states,

Human beings create temporary and arbitrary boundaries to exclude beings who aren’t like them. Human beings have justified wars, slavery, sexual violence, and military conquests through the mistaken belief that those who are “different” do not experience suffering and are not worthy of moral consideration.

These boundaries change throughout history, and we’re horrified now to recall the abuse inflicted on others once classified as outsiders: the extermination of Jewish people by the Nazis, the enslavement of African people by American plantation owners, and the slaughter of Christian people for entertainment by Roman centurions.

Though PETA does not say so explicitly here, this section, accompanied as it is by pictures of animals in distress, implies that the distinction most people make between humans and animals is simply another example of an arbitrary boundary ripe for a fall.

But this is patently false. The distinction between man and animals was a feature of creation from the very beginning. Man alone was said to be the image of God. To man alone was given dominion over the earth.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth (Genesis 1:26).

When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that You visit him? For You have made him a little lower than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and honor.

You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen – even the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea that pass through the paths of the seas (Psalm 8:3-8).

Far from being an arbitrary social construct, the distinction between man and animals is original and God ordained. Those who suggest otherwise are seriously mistaken.

Is it true that we are all animals?

This same vein of thinking – the notion that there is no distinction to be made between man and animals – is found made explicit at the end of What PETA REALLY Stands For. Under the heading “Animals,” we find the following,

We are all animals…Human being have few, if any, unique capabilities – man being can learn languages, enjoy complex social bonds, sacrifice pleasure for the good of others, use tools, imagine, and dream. Many beings remember information, play with friends, enjoy intimacy, gossip, and mourn their deceased. Some beings have enormous capabilities beyond our own – in navigation, endurance, communication, and detection of natural phenomena. We don’t yet fully understand how all beings think – or what they think – but dismissing their mental world as less developed, rational, moral, or intelligent than our own is clearly a mistake.

This is an extraordinary paragraph. Here, the author seems unwilling to concede that there is even the slightest difference in mental capacity between man and animals. For my part, I would have been more impressed with his argument if the words had been written by a simian representative from AETH (Animals for the Ethical Treatment of Humans), but such was not the case.

In truth, there is a vast difference between the mental world of a man and that of a cow. “Do not be like the horse or like the mule, which have no understanding, which must be harnessed with bit and bridle, else they will not come near you,” wrote the psalmist.

Writing about false teachers, the apostle Peter compared them to, “natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed” (2 Peter 2:12). The Greek word translated “brute” is alogos, without logic. Various theologians have tried to discern in what way man is the image of God. The correct answer is that man is rational. John tells us it is Christ himself who lightens the mind of every man who comes into the world (John 1:9). This he does not do for animals. You and I are rational beings because God in his grace made us that way. And our rationality creates vast gulf between man and any creature in the animal kingdom. The Darwinist claim that we are all animals is false. And for folks at PETA to suggest that it is true is for them to use their God-given rational faculties to insult their creator.

The Golden Rule, to whom does it apply?

Under the heading “Ethical,” PETA quotes the Golden Rule and claims that, “it must be extended to all living beings: reptiles, mammals, fish, insects, birds, amphibians, and crustaceans.” Noticeably missing her are microscopic animals such as amoebas. Apparently in the eyes of PETA they do not get the benefit of the Golden Rule.

But what is the Golden Rule, and to whom or what does it apply? PETA states the Golden Rule this way, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Many people take this to be a quotation from Scripture, but it is really a misquotation.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus stated the Golden Rule this way, “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12 emphasis added). This translation, taken from the New King James Version, is an accurate rendering of the Greek text. What is important to note here is Jesus’ explicit reference to men (Greek anthropoi). Anthropos is the Greek word that can mean mankind generally or a man in particular. Form it we get such English words as anthropology (the study of man), anthropomorphic (having the form of a man), and philanthropy (the love of mankind). Anthropos never refers to animals.

The Golden Rule is a maxim laid down by Christ for how we are to treat our fellow human beings. It is not a commandment governing our relationship to animals. For PETA to suggest that it does, is for them to misrepresent the words of Christ.

Conclusion

The folks at PETA have a zeal for ethics, but not according to knowledge. While one can have a certain amount of respect for the sincerity with which they hold their views, their ethical stance is not merely wrong, it is downright dangerous. PETA seeks to improve the treatment of animals by elevating them to the same value as people. But if there is no distinction between the value of people and that of animals, such a view could just as easily be used in reverse to lower the value of men to the level of lab rats. And as the brutal history of the 20th century makes clear, this is typically what the sinful heart of man will do with such a concept. The Bible itself even makes reference to what happens when man and animals are held to be of equal worth, “Yet for Your sake we are killed all day long; We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter” (Psalm 44:22).

Finally, lest anyone suppose that this post is written to justify cruelty toward animals, please let him consider what Scripture has to say about the matter – Exodus 20:10, 23:5; Deuteronomy 25:4, Proverbs 12:10; and Matthew 12:11 – and show compassion to the creatures God has given into our hands.