Regrettably, more and more Christians are being swayed by animal rights arguments.
I believe that animal rights is not only incompatible with Christianity but that animal rights poses significant risks to the enviornment.
Definitions
- Christian: one who believes in the person and work of the God-Man, Jesus Christ as the exclusive Savior of the world (John 14:6) and affirms the historic creeds and mores of the Church.
- Environmentalist: one who believes that science can provide insight into how humans can responsibly use the earth without causing irreparable harm. I recognize that to many, “environmentalist” carries much negative baggage as environmentalism has been co-opted by the extremists who constantly provide dire apocalyptic predictions that this or that behavior by humans will cause the world to end. I actually prefer the term ecologist, but since it is less well known, I am stuck with environmentalist.
- Animal Rights: the view which denies that humans have any moral authority or right to eat, ranch, hunt, trap, fish or otherwise interfere with animals living out their lives. In other words, humans would have to essentially grant animals the same kinds of rights afforded our fellow humans. Animal-rights activists are not suggesting that animals have the right to vote, but they do believe that the right to life and noninterference is fundamental and humans must respect that in order to be properly moral. Just as you can’t walk into your neighbor’s house without permission, so you would not be allowed (from an ethical perspective) to sport hunt or fish or eat a burger. To an animal-rights activist, eating animal flesh is morally analogous to cannibalism; it is an extreme expression of a lack of respect for the animal’s life. Just to be clear, animal-rights activists believe that self-defense does provide justification for killing an animal. If a mountain lion attacks you, animal-rights activists believe you are justified in using lethal force to protect yourself.
- Animal protectionism: a slightly more modest position than animal rights, as it argues that humans may kill animals only if there were overriding reasons for doing so. In other words, animal protectionists deny that humans have a prima facie right to kill or harm animals. For example, an animal protectionist would say that birds threatening the safety of passenger liners around an airport could be morally killed if other, less lethal methods failed to work. In contrast, an animal-rights activist would say that perhaps the airport should be shut down or the birds would need to be humanely moved to a new location of similar worth and value from the perspective of the birds. As can be expected, animal protectionists’ views fall in a spectrum. Some are so extreme that distinguishing them from animal-rights activists would be difficult indeed. I just want you, the reader, to ponder how life would be different if every time you wanted to kill an animal you had to provide overriding evidence of need.
Commentary by Stephen M. Vantassel on Animal Rights Claims
Publications by Stephen Vantassel on Animal Rights Related Issues
Vantassel, Stephen M., Tim L. Hiller, Kelly D. J. Powell, and Scott E. Hygnstrom. "Using Advancements in Cable-Trapping to Overcome Barriers to Furbearer Management in the United States." Journal of wildlife Management 74, no. 5 (2010): 934-939.
Vantassel, Stephen M. "Animal Suffering Should Not Trump Environmental Stewardship." Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 53, no. 3 (2010): 458-70.
Why Christians and Environmentalists Cannot Support Animal Rights Aug/09 Prairie Fire
If you would like to learn more, contact me by sending an e-mail to 
stephenvantasselathotmail.com
Assistant Editor of The Evangelical Review of Society and Politics