8 - 11 - 17 Dogs are Better than People? (5 minutes)

“Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.”

We are not asked to deny our cravings. Neither are we asked to deny our vices. We are not asked to gain further resolve in the pursuit of holiness in order to deny any of our own weaknesses. We are asked to deny the totality of our current selves in preference for the new self Christ will fashion within us.

I’ve written before about how Christ’s call is not just a new moral standard. If it were it would be an impossible one. It seems to me that the Christian vision of discipleship is actually quite different than that of the Jewish, though this is only in my perception and I am quite ignorant of Judaism as it extends beyond the Old Testament.

It is less about behaving a certain way than it is about having a certain state of being. All our righteous actions garner some of their value in that they have a tendency to move us closer to the type of being God desires us to be. I’m not saying this is the only reason righteous acts are valuable, after all a God who loves righteousness must love seeing it happen within his creation and we will probably be doing some good for other people or creatures.

Creatures, creatures seemed to have gained importance just as our culture’s respect for human life has waned. It is not what I would expect, one would think that cruelty or humanity would rise and fall as distinctive moods within a culture, but it turns out they are not evenly distributed across our perception.

Animal rights activists, vegetarians, and vegans focus on protecting animals and their lives. They forbid us to eat beef cattle, when that is the only reason these animals are alive. Were they not to be eaten, they would not have been born. I think there is a reason you see religious people underrepresented in these groups.

The whole Abrahamic faith affirms man’s superiority over animals. He is granted dominion over them in Genesis and it seems just. Now this may seem simple chauvinism, but I think the argument as to whether man is fundamentally different than other animals is simpler than it may seem.

I know of no chimps who wage wars to decide whether chimps they have never met will live under autocratic or democratic governments. I know of no octopi who create works of art in the hope of inspiring a moment of appreciation of the divine among other octopi. And I certainly know no dogs who give their money to dogs they don’t know, to help other dogs they also don’t know.

You may expect me to say that people are inherently superior to animals, but I am afraid that argument, at least for myself, is rooted in faith. What I am saying it is not possible to be disagreed about is that we are fundamentally different. Octopi may be intelligent, I wouldn’t doubt it, but intelligence is not the same as humanity. The level of organization, tool use, and social complexity in our lives is quite astronomical distances from the chimp who, living in a matriarchal tribal group, uses a stick to catch termites.

But I also know of no chimps who very loudly and publicly give to charity. I don’t know of octopi who focus more on industry and popularity than product in their art. I don’t know of any dogs who wage wars actually for resources, but claim them to be ideological.

Back to beef cattle. If we are higher, or at least different, than cattle and in dominion over them it seems reasonable that we could assign their purpose for living. It is, after all, hard to imagine what greater good a cow could have than feeding hungry people other than being a beast of burden or a pet.

This is not to say that animal cruelty is ever acceptable. There is quite a sharp distinction between slaughter and torture, there is no good reason to introduce any more suffering than necessary into the life of an animal, even if their suffering is worth less than that of a person.

Here, though, is where I find the animal rights activists position somewhat appalling. There are still people, everywhere in the world, starving to death, being murdered, being oppressed, yet we are concerned with the welfare of dogs. Anyone who seriously believes in an Abrahamic faith would have to say that they would kill twenty dogs to save a person (quite an unpleasant thought), regardless of the nature of the person.

I asked this question to my friend who was raised Catholic but now says he “believes in a higher power.” (I think this is often an atheist’s way of avoiding hurting our feelings.) He said, “it depends on the person.” I found this incredibly ludicrous. A person is not valuable because of any good they have done, nor their attributes. He might say he would save a kind, lighthearted person but let the cruel one die. But what if the kindness was a mere byproduct of constant good health and a harmonious life? What if the cruel person was constantly racked by physical as well as emotional pain that contributed to a sharp, snappy attitude? The “cruel” person could actually be “better” (in the sense of expending more effort towards good conduct) than the “kind” person. But he would have let him die.

I do not think protecting animal rights is an evil thing to do, I think it usually comes from a place of deep charity. The only thing I wish these people would do is to reorder their priorities slightly so that people come first in their charity. I’ve actually often heard the expression from these types of people that “dogs are better than people” or “animals are innocent of the wickedness of people.” We’ll see what they think after seeing two roosters gut each other on sight for no reason other than dominance. Or how they feel when a dog has their ankle in its jaws.

If one has really progressed so far in charity towards humans, as in they have started there and they feel their love start to overflow the people they come in contact with, I think protecting animals is very admirable. But the love of humanity must have come first. I think for this person, if they really desire less suffering for animals as well as the environmental benefits of such a diet, vegetarianism is a good option. Vegetarianism still affirms the dominion of man over beast but it is a bloodless dominion. Not that people eating animals necessitates any cruelty, but it does necessitate some deaths.

The claim of veganism, that animals are not under our dominion, just seems silly to me. It really wouldn’t benefit the animals either. If today we stopped drinking milk all the dairy cows would either be butchered, or worse, released to the wild. Some might not think it was worse but consider how inept a dairy cow would be at surviving in a midwestern forest. They should all starve, be eaten, or more likely one, then the other. The fact is that the only reason millions of animals exist in this world is for human consumption. It seems strange to, being motivated by a love for something, wish there to be less of it.