The Catholic Church regards animals to be part of God’s creation, and are therefore deserving of respect. But only men and women are made in the image and likeness of God. Moreover, animals do not share the same dignity as human beings. Nor are they capable of being held morally responsible for their behavior. As such, while animal welfare is imperative, in no way can animals be said to possess rights.
However, the latest Gallup poll on morality reveals that Democrats and young people appear to be more concerned about the rights of Fido than his owner, Freddy.
When asked if abortion is “morally acceptable,” 78 percent of Democrats and 59 percent of those 18-34 agree; this compares to 20 percent of Republicans and 43 percent of those 55 and over. But when it comes to medical testing on animals, only 45 percent of Democrats and 35 percent of young people agree; the majority of Republicans (69 percent) and the oldest generation (52 percent) agree.
In other words, while nearly 8-in-10 Democrats are okay with abortion, less than half are okay with medical testing for animals. The majority of young people are also okay with abortion, but they draw a hard line when it comes to medical testing of animals.
Why are Democrats and young people showing more respect for the rights of Fido than Freddy?
From a wealth of survey data we know that Democrats and young people are the least religious; they are much more likely to answer “none” when asked what their religious affiliation is. How does this explain their moral choices?
What unites Democrats and young people, and what separates them from most Americans, is their penchant for autonomy. For many of them, autonomy is their god. Abortion, they reckon, is all about “bodily autonomy,” hence it is morally acceptable. The competing right of the child to live is given short shrift.
The interest in protecting animals cannot be explained by an affection for autonomy. Something else is going on.
Young people are more likely to own a pet than older people, and may therefore be more protective of their status. More important, however, is their relatively high exposure to videos and instruction on animal rights in school and social media. As for Democrats, they are more likely to take an expansive view of rights than other Americans (save for the life of the unborn). Because they fancy themselves as being open-minded, they regard an exclusive interest in human rights as chauvinistic.
If there is one person who has given intellectual heft to the moral choices of Democrats and young people it is Princeton professor Peter Singer. He is the father of the animal rights movement. He is also a proponent of infanticide.
Singer believes that chimps and gorillas should have the same rights as humans. He takes animal rights so seriously that he won’t eat clams. Why not? Because he is uncertain about the capacity of shellfish to suffer. But what about babies? He is not only okay with abortion, he argues that parents should be allowed to kill their kids until their offspring are 28 days old.
Now it would be unfair to say that Singer is representative of what Democrats and young people believe. But even if he is an outlier among them, it is disturbing to see Democrats and young people having more in common with him than with Republicans and older Americans.
Whether it is Singer’s influence or not, his inhumane perspective has made its way into the pop culture. In a recent ESPN interview, there was a sign on a bookshelf behind the speaker that read the following:
DOGS ARE WELCOME
Humans Tolerated
We need to get our moral house in order. If we can’t conclude that Freddy should be awarded a higher moral plane than Fido, we are heading towards disaster.
