Should Animals Have the Same Rights as People?

Recommend (0) Comments (0)

Originally published in Santa Clara Magazine Online Edition. Downloaded by Opposing Views on November 6th, 2008.

The Christian tradition understands the proleptic ("already but not yet") perfection of nature as figured by the reign of God announced and inaugurated by Jesus Christ. In his incarnation, the Son put on flesh, put on nature, embraced life and gave thereby a second blessing not only to human nature but to creation as a whole. By his resurrection from among the dead, the Son prefigured in himself the destiny of nature—for that which was assumed is redeemed, i.e., by obviating the final effects of death (annihilation), Christ bestowed the quality of infinity (eternal life) on all that is finite (mortal). Thus, while nature (qua creation) and the reign of God are not co-extensive, yet nature is the context and indeed the very condition for the possibility of the in-breaking reign of God. Nature is that which came to be through Christ (creation), that which is redeemed by Christ in its brokenness (resurrection) and that which will come to perfection in Christ at the end of history (parousia).

If nature then, as a whole, plays an essential role in God’s plan, then nature as a whole enjoys a sacred character. Does this sacred character translate into innate and inalienable dignity for non-human reality in a way that is analogous to the case for human reality? Do animals therefore have rights? Is their moral status inherent and therefore recognized and respected, rather than conditionally granted, by human beings? How one answers these questions reveals fundamental premises and basic assumptions about the nature of the universe.

Some would say that all creatures, great and small, are created and therefore loved by God, who holds them in existence. While this may well be true, yet Jesus, who by his death and resurrection freed humankind from ultimate annihilation, never explicitly spoke of the salvation of animals. Yet, as noted above, the fourth evangelist did teach that Jesus reconciled all things in himself. Does this translate to mean that every individual animal has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Few would hold this position, yet the long experience of the Church is that, in any given age, saints are few; holy people are often hidden from view and the handful may well be right.

Some would say that, because God chose to create them within a system that is governed by laws of evolution and natural selection, therefore, animals should exist, as species, for a time. This would not extend rights to individual animals, but it would accord species the right to exist within the span of time allotted to them by the natural history of the world. A further question then arises: since human beings are a part of nature and not "super-natural" beings, then do all our actions and choices constitute "natural" occurrences? For example, does the environmental degradation caused by our life-style choices constitute a natural development, and should the ensuing extinction of species be termed "natural"? Or do we have a moral obligation to preserve species by examining the "double effect" of many of our choices and making sacrifices of self-interest to insure the survival of other species?

In the years to come, with the further industrialization of the planet and the ever increasing burden of the human species on all other living beings, such considerations will only become more necessary and more vexing.