Ideas and beliefs are our masters. As we think, so also do
we live! Let’s do a thought experiment. Ingrid Newkirk, the head of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,
believes that we should make no moral or value distinction among mammals: “A
rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals.”
What are the implications of such a belief? Many! Our laws
reflect our values. If there is no moral distinction among mammals, then our
laws should reflect this belief. They should protect mammals against murder,
not only by humans but by other amoral animal agents. Consequently, we should prosecute
any mammal who kills a mouse of a rat, but we can’t stop there. We should also
prosecute any mammal who steals from a mammal – think milk.
What would the implications of such “upgraded” laws be? Pigs,
rats and cows would inevitably overrun our streets, farms and gardens. Some
fundamentalist animal rights folk will answer, “So what! It’s about time that
the tables are reversed.”
However, such a reversal would have even more serious costs.
When our laws are revised to protect every mammal – and this would make our
laws unenforceable – then none will
be protected. Expect to see libel, theft, murder and sexual abuse skyrocket!
The problems don’t stop here. Even Newkirk’s position is
man-centered, depending on human judgment. Why should our laws stop at protecting
mammals? Does Newkirk promote the value of mammals because she too is a mammal, and, as a mammal, she
confers greater value on mammals? From the perspective of animal rights, this
seems very chauvinistic. Why not also extend value and protection to fish and
birds? Would we deny mammalian worth to them simply because they are more
dissimilar from us?
Some will interject that, “Birds and fish are less
intelligent… or emotive… or conscious than mammals. Therefore they don’t have
the value that mammals have!”
Apart from the questionable science upon which such
arguments rest, this position(s) has even more fundamental problems. Why should
the level of intelligent or emotion bestow a greater value on an animal? While science
might be able to demonstrate that certain species can perform certain tasks
more efficiently, it is unable to answer the question of value.
Instead, the question of value or worth requires an even
more fundamental question: “Value or worth to
whom?” Is there an ultimate source that determines value or is this entire
concept just a human invention to bestow meaning on life?
If we created this idea, and value has no existence outside
of what we determine value to be, then we have returned to man-centered center
and dominated world. However, it is an arbitrary world, depending on who is in
power and can enforce their worldview. It also means that anything goes,
because there is no absolute standard of truth to determine the worth of
anything. It means that if I think that people who look or act like me are the
most evolved, and if I attach value to the highest level of evolution, then who
can say that I am wrong!
Real value therefore depends on the existence of immutable
and universal truth that transcends us and our competing opinions, and therefore
also a Truth-giver that transcends us.
Some will interject, “We have natural laws, and they don’t
require your Truth-giver. Why then can’t we have a natural law that bestows
value?”
There are many problems with this hope. For one thing, there
is no evidence that our natural, universal, immutable laws don’t require a
Truth-giver. Perhaps even more problematic, a natural law that bestows value cannot be natural. Once again, value is
the product of personhood and not
science, which can only tell us what is.
Value is the product of intelligence, consciousness and will, not of impersonal
and mindless forces.
We can demonstrate this by showing the distinction between
the law of gravity and the law that imparts value. The effects of the former
can be bypassed or overcome; those of the values law cannot. We can board an airplane that violates the
natural effects of gravity without consequence. However, we cannot sex-traffic
teenagers and pre-teens without violating the law of value. Hence, this law is
a different kind of law – a Personal law. In contrast, gravity can attract, but
it cannot value anything.
Because of the universality, immutable, and Personhood of
value, it doesn’t matter whether we go to Alaska or the desert or even enter a
time machine to go to a different age, the same immutable law of value will
confront us and the girls we intend to traffic. Nor will any of our scientific
innovations change it. Our conscience instructs us that our value as humans
transcends any changes or innovations, and our conscience will punish us if we
defy the law we find therein! In this sense, it seems to be more un-defiable and
Personal than the law of gravity, which we can side-step without any
consequence.
At this, some will respond, “I know what is right and wrong without your God.” However, it is impossible to know what is “right and wrong” unless there is a real and objective right and wrong, which transcends our bio-chemical reactions. However, you can say, “I have the very real feeling of right and wrong regardless!” True, but irrelevant! Feelings cannot equate with truth unless truth and value have an independent existence, apart from our feelings.
At this, some will respond, “I know what is right and wrong without your God.” However, it is impossible to know what is “right and wrong” unless there is a real and objective right and wrong, which transcends our bio-chemical reactions. However, you can say, “I have the very real feeling of right and wrong regardless!” True, but irrelevant! Feelings cannot equate with truth unless truth and value have an independent existence, apart from our feelings.
No comments:
Post a Comment