A Rat Is Not a Boy
Refuting the Ethics of Human-Animal Equality
Ingrid Newkirk once argued, “a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.” To say that Newkirk confused, mistook, or misunderstood the essential difference between animals and humans is an understatement. Newkirk is the founder and president of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Newkirk’s philosophy, which equates the moral worth of animals and humans, is reflected in the arguments of young environmentalists today, who attempt to use this equivalence to argue for animal rights.
Follow the argument of the young environmentalist in this video? He equates the treatment of cows to the unethical treatment that humans experience. His argument caches out like this… if it is wrong to make humans experience this, it is equally wrong to make animals experience this. Notice the consistency of his worldview.
The Apple device that the individual holds in his hands is likely made with slave labor in China. He is comfortable using his money to support activities which turn men into beasts, because he believes that men are no different than beasts. Though the activist’s worldview is internally consistent when applied to animals, it becomes inconsistent when considering human exploitation, like the use of slave labor to produce the very devices he uses to spread his message. If animals and humans are morally equivalent, why does he excuse or ignore the suffering of humans?
He wishes to use your ethical system, which regards men and animals as fundamentally different things, to cudgel you into accepting what he believes is a winning argument. Which goes something like this:
P1. It is unethical to treat animals differently than men.
P2. Since there is no difference between men and animals, we must treat animals with the same respect and value that we treat men.
Conclusion. Therefore, it is wrong to do things like impregnate cows against their wills to collect their milk.
This a valid argument. Valid means that it is structured properly, so that if the premises are true, then the conclusion that follows from the premises must also be true. The problem is, for the argument to be a good argument, it must also be sound. For the argument to be sound the premises must be true and the conclusions must follow from the premises. This argument is not sound because the premises are not true.
P1 assumes that men and animals deserve equal treatment. This overlooks key distinctions in rationality, moral agency, and self-awareness that separate humans from animals, even within the framework of ethical responsibility.
P2 assumes the truth of P1 and extrapolates that out to its logical conclusion, which argues, if men and animals deserve equal treatment, it follows, it is unethical to treat men and animals differently. Thus, we must respect and value animals in the same way that we respect and value men.
Interestingly, theological and philosophical insights alike affirm the distinction between humans and animals. For example, in Genesis 2:19-20, God brought every animal to Adam to see what he would name them. Curiously, the text states that after this process, no suitable helper was found. What we have here is a classic reductio ad absurdum, “By this the man could observe that there was none among the creatures who matched him in kind. The narration brings out this implication: “For Adam no suitable helper was found” (v. 20). The point is that the man was looking for a human match, but he “found” none.”1 God did not tell Adam that the animals were unsuitable mates, Adam found out by observation and concluded that there was a fundamental difference between himself and the animals. Further, God gave Adam dominion over the animals, this was demonstrated in Adam naming them all. In both cases, Adam understood that he and the animals were not equal to one another, nor were they suitable mates for one another.
Yet, in his dominion over the animals, Adam was responsible to steward the animals. In stewarding the animals, he understood that they, like himself, had essential value because they were both created by God and thus had an invested dignity that did not allow for them to be mistreated. While I fundamentally disagree with the young activist, I can find agreement with the perspective that argues that animals should not be mistreated. Not because they are equal to man in value and worth but because God gave them to us to steward.
In the end, the argument presented by Newkirk and echoed by the young activist in the video collapses under the weight of its own faulty premises. While the consistency of his worldview is clear, it is built on the mistaken notion that humans and animals possess equal moral value. This not only devalues the unique capacities of humans—our rationality, moral agency, and ability to form complex societies—but also opens the door to ethical contradictions, such as the activist’s casual disregard for human suffering in favor of animal rights. To blur the lines between men and animals is to obscure the very dignity that compels us to care for both creation and each other. Rather than lowering humanity to the level of beasts, we should aspire to a higher ethic that values both man and animal within their proper, distinct places.
Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 215.