Commentary: Silkworms equivalent to humans? Danger of 'Animal Rights'

Dconstruction of human value, inflation of animal rights

Animals certainly deserve protection against mistreatment. It is the nature of the human person to show compassion, animals are part of creation and should therefore be respected. However, for some, animals should be elevated to the status of right-bearing, thereby becoming the moral equivalent of people.Keeping our emotions and proper respect for animals in check, the Catechism also says, "It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should be as a priority go to the relief of human misery.  One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons." 

WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - Recently the issue of the treatment of animals has surfaced in a completely unpredictable way.  PETA and some Hindus believe that the process by which silk is made is unethical and harmful to silkworms.  Sericulture-the process of making silk-involves boiling the worms and/or placing them in extremely hot ovens.  As reported by Julia Duin of the Washington Times:

"Silk comes from tiny eggs laid by female silk moths that hatch into larvae that feed on chopped mulberry leaves. These silkworms secrete from salivary glands a viscous fluid that hardens into a filament on contact with air. Spinning around in figure eights, the worms cocoon themselves with a single filament that can measure up to 300 feet long. Before the worm can hatch, the cocoon is dropped into boiling water."

Animal "rights" proponents actively work to ensure animals are treated properly.    Abuse, starvation, neglect, and other problems certainly exist and should be actively fought.  Their definition of what is proper differs from that of most people, but never-the-less they are active in their efforts.  More often than their legitimate work for the proper treatment of animals, animals "rights" activists are known for extreme, criminal, and, at the very least, ridiculous behavior.  In attempting to convey their sometimes legitimate point, they create a media circus to merely gain attention.

It may come as a surprise to some that animals "rights" groups not only work for animals, but insects as well.  Countless news outlets covered the response from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) when President Obama killed a fly on his arm during an interview.   Calling the President's move an "execution," PETA sent the President a "humane fly catcher."   Defending their position, PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich said, "We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals."

Fighting for worm rights?

In order to verify the claim that silkworms feel pain, PETA claims that silkworms must have sensory organs because when you pick up a rock and you see worms underneath, they move around and react to the light and other the changes in their environment.  Unfortunately, problem with this argument is that robots and plants also react to light and changes in their environment, but that does not mean they have the ability to feel pain. 

Additionally, science will never be able to conclusively answer whether or not silkworms feel pain.  This has nothing to do with the fact that subjective beings are unable to objectively interpret the feelings of other beings based on their behavior.  These worms do not have the standard apparatuses to feel pain; such as a brain to transmit such feelings to the rest of its body. 

Likewise, silkworms are processed for silk at the pupa stage.  At the pupa stage, silkworms do not react to changes in their environment.  Though I may be belaboring the point, the amount of heat generated in the Sericulture process is so intense that many question whether or not a being with a brain, nerves, and other necessary faculties would feel pain in the first place.

What this is all about?

Even though science, and yes, even PETA, are unable to make a convincing case for silkworms feeling pain during sericulture, the underlying argument is not about silk; it's about treating animals and insects as though they are humans.

Most Americans agree that animals should not be abused, neglected, or generally mistreated.  Yet fighting for such things is not part of the animal rights movement.  These basic considerations are best expressed through a fight for animal welfare, which is far from animal rights.  

Animal rights groups do not believe that rights are reserved specifically for human beings, and with this misunderstanding they press forward in the wrong direction. 

The problem trivializing humans to the status of animals is that as animals, there is no reason to believe we would be able to demonstrate compassion and good-will while functioning on base instincts.  The logical end to this problem is that we must conclude that humans are unique in their ability to show compassion and good-will and for that reasons singularly bear rights.

If animals naturally possessed rights, then the animal kingdom would operate very differently than it does.  If it was wrong to kill animals for our own consumption and proper balance of the environment, then animals would never kill to eat either.  But we have all seen lions on TV chasing down their prey.  They do not have any concern for the "rights" of the animal they hunt. 

Since most animal rights activists claim that we are nothing but animals with base instincts, then why would we operate with different ethics than animals?  If cats are given a pass for torturing a mouse before killing it, then why can people not do the same with a puppy or a goat?  The answer is simple, but often overlooked: we are not animals, and our exceptional nature is what compels us to treat animals with love and respect as part of creation.   

Where do the "rights" end?

When animals are elevated to the status of right-bearing they become the moral equivalent of people, and if people and animals are equal, we have no rights above them.  But why do these groups give such credit to animals?  What is the factor that distinguishes a non-moral being, which deserves no inherent rights, from a moral one, which do possess rights? 

Orthodoxy Today's Ancient Faith Radio recently featured the issue.  Wesley J. Smith, Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute and human exceptionalism (human beings have special status in nature based on their unique capacities advocate) argues these groups fundamentally believe the ability to feel pain and have cognitive capacity gives one rights. 

As he mentions, this means that owning cattle is the moral equivalent to slavery and cattle driving is the moral equivalent of human trafficking since animals and people alike have these capabilities.  In fact, Ingrid Newkirk, Cofounder and President of PETA, said, "The question is not, can they [animals] reason? Nor can they talk? But, can they suffer?"

This is a terrifying worldview.  Newkirk believes that because humans eat meat, own pets, and do things against the will of an animal (like bathing a collie), we are committing evil at the same level as if it were done to humans. 

Do not be fooled into thinking that cognitive capacity and the ability to feel pain are the only prerequisites for rights.  In the case of silkworms, they have no cognitive capacity and are unlikely to feel pain, and yet many still fight for their inherent rights equal to that of humans. 

After they are done expressing their anti-human exceptionalism, I wonder why they would believe we have the moral capacity to care for our equals (silkworms, flies, cows, etc) in the first place.  Like the lion on the television, if we are merely animals, than we act out of natural, indiscriminate instinct.  Plainly put: this worldview is self-contradictory.

Treated better than babies

One should not be surprised that the deconstruction of human value and the inflation of animal rights leads to activists speaking of animals in the same way that pro-lifers speak of children.  Newkirk told the Washingtonian magazine, "There's no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They're all animals." 

So what do moral beings like us do when a right-bearing agent is being mistreated?  We work for justice and praise any group that works toward that end.  Pete Letheby, associate editor for The Independent, wrote in 2004, "PETA also does something else that hardly any other group does with any regularity: It stands up for those that can't speak for themselves.  It sticks its neck out.  It takes chances.  It displays a great deal of mettle for a cause it profoundly believes in."

Does this sound strangely familiar?  PETA protests sericulture, which boils silkworms at virtually an embryonic stage, but where do they stand on the dismembering of a human embryo or fetus?  If a human fetus is an animal, shouldn't PETA also decry abortion?  And yet they stay silent on the issue when it is them that claim we are nothing but animals.  Why does PETA discriminate against humans when it comes to bestowing rights?

A "Catechismlic" Conclusion

Many of us find it easy to pass these radical groups off as liberal lunatics that could not hold a consistent or rational thought if they had to.  The problem with taking them so lightly is that they are helping shape the discussion that will determine the important question of "what gives something rights?"  So far they are surprisingly successful in their efforts.  They claim we should care for animals not out of our natural compassion, but because they hold rights equal to that of humans (and sometimes higher than that of humans).  This is a dangerous debate to lose. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks to the issue animal dignity and worth because animals should inherently be afforded a certain amount of value and love.  The Catechism says we must have a "religious respect for the integrity of creation" and owe them kindness out of respect for God having created them.  This means treating animals carefully and lovingly is actually part of Christian duty.  Likewise, animals should never suffer or die needlessly; but we must understand that this is a far cry from equality with humans.

Keeping our emotions and proper respect for animals in check, the Catechism also says, "It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should be as a priority go to the relief of human misery.  One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons." 

Groups such as PETA do some good work for the wrong reason, while many of their efforts are misguided and unethical.  Rather than promote animal welfare, they promote animal rights, which is where they become self-contradictory.  In attributing rights to animals they devalue humans and misplace the role of animals in culture.

When humans and animals are treated alike, we need not be surprised when more people like Terri Shiavo are "put down" like animals, or when more babies are aborted in the name of convenience or population control.  If America does not pick its head out of the sand on recognizing humans as having distinct and inalienable rights, then we will be sure to lose them.

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'

Copyright 2021 - Distributed by Catholic Online