Answering Arguments Against Animal Rights
Part III - Argument Two: Animals Were Put Here for Our Use
Argument Two: Animals were put here for our use.

Argument two: animals were put here for our use.
Argument Two: Animals were put here for our use.

This is the most common argument that people come up with for abusing animals. People who hold this view truly believe that we live in a human-centered universe in which everything has been put here for our use.

But if this were true, there would be no such thing as...

...mosquitoes, ...

...poisonous mushrooms, ...

...or viruses.

The fact that there are many things which act against our interests contradicts the idea that this is a human-centered universe in which all things were put here for our use.
Argument two: Women and children were put here for our use

Secondly, this is an arbitrary claim. I could just as easily say that women and children were put here for our use. I could then justify child abuse and wife battering on the basis of this claim. Clearly, this would just be a rationalization for acting immorally.
Bible: Genesis 1:26, 9:23

Bible believers may object that this is not an a "arbitrary claim" because it states in the Bible that God gave us dominion over the animals, and said that we could use them for food.

We'll be devoting another program to the subject of Biblical morality, as it is clearly beyond the scope of this program.

[Please see the online article: Rational Compassionate Living.]

Bible: Col. 3:22, 1 Tim. 2:11-12

Suffice it to say for now that the Bible also permits slavery and dominion over women. Both of which we have come to realize are moral violations of inherent rights.

So, we know that the Bible permits some things which we have come to realize are immoral. We cannot say then that just because the Bible permits the use of animals, that the user of animals is moral. Since this could be just another instance of things the Bible permits which are immoral.

The Bible is a collection of many writings which span a thousand years of different authors and philosophies. Because of this, it has been called, "a fiddle on which any tune may be played."

Not all of the Bible writers felt that killing animals was morally okay. In place of this verse on dominion, why not focus in on the Biblical commandment: "Thou shalt not kill"? Or on Proverbs, chapter 12, verse 10, which reads:

The just man takes care of his beast, but the heart of the wicked is merciless.

Even if we did have dominion or rulership over the other species on this planet, that would not make it okay for us to abuse animals as we do.

Being a ruler does not free one from moral responsibility towards one's subjects. What sort of rulers should we be? Judging from factory farms, animal laboratories, and veal crates, many of us are trying to emulate the rulership of Adolph Hitler!

Indeed, the Jewish writer Isaac Singer (a refugee from Nazi persecution) has stated:

To animals, all humans are Nazis.
Contents   Prev   Next: Part IV -- Argument Three: If we don't kill animals, they will die more horrible deaths
This site is concerned with: ethics, compassion, empathy, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Watchtower, poetry, philosophy, atheism, and animal rights.