What do you think?
Rate this book
A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights Movement
Over the past thirty years, as Wesley J. Smith details in his latest book, the concept of animal rights has been seeping into the very bone marrow of Western culture. One reason for this development is that the term "animal rights" is so often used very loosely, to mean simply being nicer to animals. But although animal rights groups do sometimes focus their activism on promoting animal welfare, the larger movement they represent is actually advancing a radical belief system.
For some activists, the animal rights ideology amounts to a quasi religion, one whose central doctrine declares a moral equivalency between the value of animal lives and the value of human lives. Animal rights ideologues embrace their beliefs with a fervor that is remarkably intense and sustained, to the point that many dedicate their entire lives to "speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves." Some believe their cause to be so righteous that it entitles them to cross the line from legitimate advocacy to vandalism and harassment, or even terrorism against medical researchers, the fur and food industries, and others they accuse of abusing animals.
All people who love animals and recognize their intrinsic worth can agree with Wesley J. Smith that human beings owe animals respect, kindness, and humane care. But Smith argues eloquently that our obligation to humanity matters more, and that granting "rights" to animals would inevitably diminish human dignity.
In making this case with reason and passion, A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy strikes a major blow against a radically antihuman dogma.
For some activists, the animal rights ideology amounts to a quasi religion, one whose central doctrine declares a moral equivalency between the value of animal lives and the value of human lives. Animal rights ideologues embrace their beliefs with a fervor that is remarkably intense and sustained, to the point that many dedicate their entire lives to "speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves." Some believe their cause to be so righteous that it entitles them to cross the line from legitimate advocacy to vandalism and harassment, or even terrorism against medical researchers, the fur and food industries, and others they accuse of abusing animals.
All people who love animals and recognize their intrinsic worth can agree with Wesley J. Smith that human beings owe animals respect, kindness, and humane care. But Smith argues eloquently that our obligation to humanity matters more, and that granting "rights" to animals would inevitably diminish human dignity.
In making this case with reason and passion, A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy strikes a major blow against a radically antihuman dogma.
400 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2010
11 people are currently reading
162 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
September 4, 2012
Smith's book is a polemic against the animal-liberation movement. He argues for "human exceptionalism": the idea that humans possess a unique moral worth that endows them alone, among all creatures, with the right never to be treated merely as means to the ends of others. He believes that attributing significant moral status to animals necessarily threatens the value we attach to human lives. Hence his concept of human dignity is tied to his view that animals are essentially exploitable resources. In my opinion, Smith fails to build a logically convincing case for his thesis. It is surely topsy-turvy to argue that, because we are beings with a unique capacity for morality, we have the right to harm other creatures even where no vital interest of ours is at stake, and that any attempt to restrict that right is an attack on our dignity. Ultimately, Smith's "human exceptionalism" proves to be not a statement of fact, but simply an assertion of human domination over the other sentient beings on this planet.
Those who wish to read my extended critique of Smith's book can find it here: http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts...
Those who wish to read my extended critique of Smith's book can find it here: http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts...
April 5, 2013
As the mother of a child with a congenital heart defect, I am appalled that some would put the rights of a pig (my son will need need a pig artery) above the life of my son. I have encountered that argument from several of my pro-animal (former) friends. This book gave me insight into the animal rights movement and frankly terrified me for the future. It was not a pleasant read, as the material was so alarming, but I think it is an IMPORTANT read. While I respect my kind vegan friends, this book shows that some animal rights activists have a much broader agenda that most would be sick over. Every thinking person should read this book and keep their eyes wide open, lest the radicals make further progress.
April 28, 2012
Pernicious, anti-animal (and dare I say, anti-human) diatribe. There is hardly a single sentence in this entire book that is not either a wild distortion or oughtright misrepresentation. Faux Noise would be proud.
February 21, 2019
I "profoundly" disagree with Wesley J. Smith's take on the animal rights movement (he 'profoundly' disagreed with a few philosophers in this volume). But I read this book and I think that it still raises some important issues that animal rights activists should avoid as they progress in persuading the world to adopt a more ethical lifestyle. Most notable of which is not following PETA's footsteps in advocacy. Quality over outrage.
First, let me just say, the title (and book) is a response to PETA's then CEO's statement which received a fair share of backlash. Apparently, comparing a rat to a boy is still not okay in society. The title can actually give away the type of animal rights advocates that Smith is against, mainly PETA and terrorists that bomb and target factory farm workers. These people, however, do not and can not represent the movement as a whole. It is as if we were to say that the Southern Baptist Church and the KKK are the direct result of Christianity. That is clearly a false equivalency.
Smith's goal is thus misguided and generalized. He attempts "to expose the antihuman ideology of the animal rights/liberation movement" (2). But, in so doing, he merely reports on incidents where fanatics misrepresented the good intentions that animal rights activists have. Smith is persuaded that 'Human exceptionalism' is the only basis for universal rights. He argues that animal rights are an anti-human ideology simply because of the belief that animals and humans are fundamentally equal. Although few philosophers would actually believe that unequivocally to be true. Nonetheless, even if animals were not equal to humans, that would still not help Smith's argument. If science were to expose certain races as intellectually or physically superior over others, would that then mean that we are free to do with them as we choose? The issue is not whether animals are equal in every way, the issue is whether animals can suffer. As science has revealed, almost every animal alive can suffer to a certain extent and so we must adjust our relationship with non-human animals.
Smith also writes that we cannot define rights "[w]ithout the conviction that humankind has unique worth based on our nature rather than our individual capacities, universal human rights are impossible to sustain philosophically” (242). That is not entirely clear. We can not define human rights if animals are equal to us in their ability to assess pain? How so? Expanding the moral circle to animals does nothing to our rights.
I firmly believe that Smith is overreacting to the animal rights movement and focusing too much on the terrorist fanatics that have very little to do with most of the movement.
First, let me just say, the title (and book) is a response to PETA's then CEO's statement which received a fair share of backlash. Apparently, comparing a rat to a boy is still not okay in society. The title can actually give away the type of animal rights advocates that Smith is against, mainly PETA and terrorists that bomb and target factory farm workers. These people, however, do not and can not represent the movement as a whole. It is as if we were to say that the Southern Baptist Church and the KKK are the direct result of Christianity. That is clearly a false equivalency.
Smith's goal is thus misguided and generalized. He attempts "to expose the antihuman ideology of the animal rights/liberation movement" (2). But, in so doing, he merely reports on incidents where fanatics misrepresented the good intentions that animal rights activists have. Smith is persuaded that 'Human exceptionalism' is the only basis for universal rights. He argues that animal rights are an anti-human ideology simply because of the belief that animals and humans are fundamentally equal. Although few philosophers would actually believe that unequivocally to be true. Nonetheless, even if animals were not equal to humans, that would still not help Smith's argument. If science were to expose certain races as intellectually or physically superior over others, would that then mean that we are free to do with them as we choose? The issue is not whether animals are equal in every way, the issue is whether animals can suffer. As science has revealed, almost every animal alive can suffer to a certain extent and so we must adjust our relationship with non-human animals.
Smith also writes that we cannot define rights "[w]ithout the conviction that humankind has unique worth based on our nature rather than our individual capacities, universal human rights are impossible to sustain philosophically” (242). That is not entirely clear. We can not define human rights if animals are equal to us in their ability to assess pain? How so? Expanding the moral circle to animals does nothing to our rights.
I firmly believe that Smith is overreacting to the animal rights movement and focusing too much on the terrorist fanatics that have very little to do with most of the movement.
November 24, 2014
A thought-provoking defense of human exceptionalism that forced me to think about animals in different way. I learned much about animal testing, zoos, meat production, and the fur trade. I also never realized how dangerous and terroristic animal rights groups (like the ALF and ELF) can be, or how very vocal and more mainstream organizations (such as PETA and HSUS)can support violent acts of animal rights extremists.
This book provides not only a practical look at the aforementioned animal-based industries, but a philosophical look at humans, our status, and the duty that we have to protect animals - precisely because of our unique human qualities. Giving "rights" to animals - beings uncomprehending of the concept - could potentially have disastrous consequences in how we treat one other.
All in all, very thought provoking, informative, and educational. I'm glad that I saw this on the end of the shelf in my library, noticed Dean Koontz' name (he wrote the foreword), which intrigued me.
I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in science, philosophy, or the animal rights movement.
This book provides not only a practical look at the aforementioned animal-based industries, but a philosophical look at humans, our status, and the duty that we have to protect animals - precisely because of our unique human qualities. Giving "rights" to animals - beings uncomprehending of the concept - could potentially have disastrous consequences in how we treat one other.
All in all, very thought provoking, informative, and educational. I'm glad that I saw this on the end of the shelf in my library, noticed Dean Koontz' name (he wrote the foreword), which intrigued me.
I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in science, philosophy, or the animal rights movement.
March 5, 2022
I really enjoy Wesley Smith's perspective and have enjoyed many of his books. This is probably my least favorite of his that I have read, as the subject matter is not as interesting to me as his other works on bioethics. However, he does provide a lot of information on the animal rights movement and clearly distinguishes it from animal welfare advocates. In college, I was required to attend a lecture by Gary Yourofsky for a philosophy course and was really taken aback by his aggressive speech and support of violence, but most particularly his equating humans to animals. Smith is right that this moral equivalency, a hallmark of the animal rights movement, is degrading to humans and puts the most vulnerable at risk. The misguided principles and the slippery slope of the animal rights movement should be discussed more, as many are persuaded by their highly emotional arguments, the misleading pictures they share, and their celebrity support.
February 17, 2011
I loved this book! It was very eye opening, and there's some crazy stuff and people in there. It made me want to find out more information-which any good book will make you do. I recommend this to everyone, it's important information and people need to know about it.
July 23, 2024
A DEFENSE OF "HUMAN EXCEPTIONALISM" VERSUS ANIMAL RIGHTS
Wesley J. Smith works for the Discovery Institute (which promotes Intelligent Design); he has also written the books 'Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America,' 'Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder,' 'Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World,' etc.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2010 book, "It is not my purpose in this book to act as a defender of animal industries. Rather, my goals are primarily to expose the antihuman ideology of the animal rights/liberation movement, expose its many deceptions, and warn against its sometimes violent tactics. I will also defend the use of animals as necessary and appropriate to promote human welfare, prosperity, and happiness. Finally, I will mount an unequivocal defense of the belief that human beings stand uniquely at the pinnacle of moral worth, a concept sometimes called 'human exceptionalism.'"
He suggests that animal rights/liberation "embraces a morally subversive premise... to the point that normal and logical species distinctions are condemned as akin to racism, anti-Semitism, and every other act of bigotry... Such views are not merely radical, they are profoundly antihuman." (Pg. 45) He argues that "alleviating the suffering of human beings and promoting human thriving matter most. That, in a nutshell, is the nub of the entire animal rights debate." (Pg. 80)
Later, he states that he no longer makes a distinction between the "mainstream" animal rights movement (e.g., PETA), and the "violent extremists," such as the Animal Liberation Front, since "most animal-rights activists actually support the direct-action approach. Thus, the terrorist wing is not disconnected from peaceful protestors; they all belong to a single, mutually supportive social movement." (Pg. 137)
Smith's book is a strong, but also a thoughtful and broad critique of the most radical elements of the animal rights movement.
Wesley J. Smith works for the Discovery Institute (which promotes Intelligent Design); he has also written the books 'Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America,' 'Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder,' 'Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World,' etc.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2010 book, "It is not my purpose in this book to act as a defender of animal industries. Rather, my goals are primarily to expose the antihuman ideology of the animal rights/liberation movement, expose its many deceptions, and warn against its sometimes violent tactics. I will also defend the use of animals as necessary and appropriate to promote human welfare, prosperity, and happiness. Finally, I will mount an unequivocal defense of the belief that human beings stand uniquely at the pinnacle of moral worth, a concept sometimes called 'human exceptionalism.'"
He suggests that animal rights/liberation "embraces a morally subversive premise... to the point that normal and logical species distinctions are condemned as akin to racism, anti-Semitism, and every other act of bigotry... Such views are not merely radical, they are profoundly antihuman." (Pg. 45) He argues that "alleviating the suffering of human beings and promoting human thriving matter most. That, in a nutshell, is the nub of the entire animal rights debate." (Pg. 80)
Later, he states that he no longer makes a distinction between the "mainstream" animal rights movement (e.g., PETA), and the "violent extremists," such as the Animal Liberation Front, since "most animal-rights activists actually support the direct-action approach. Thus, the terrorist wing is not disconnected from peaceful protestors; they all belong to a single, mutually supportive social movement." (Pg. 137)
Smith's book is a strong, but also a thoughtful and broad critique of the most radical elements of the animal rights movement.
April 17, 2023
An interesting premise, but definitely in need of an update. The radical animal rights groups that the author focuses on have been much quieter over the past decade and a half, and new research challenges many of his assertions about the moral life of non-human animals. I did like the differentiation between top down animal welfare and bottom up animal rights, but that was essentially the only big claim that holds up to the modern reader. I’m okay with this book serving as mainly a reference for the mid 2000s animal rights/welfare debates though, and I think it does a very good job of capturing those contemporary arguments.
September 23, 2015
Excelente para leer si estás en duda aún sobre el tema de los "derechos de los animales". La conclusión es la misma que yo ya tenía en cuenta (el hecho de que el humano tiene derechos Y obligaciones, cosa que los animales jamás podrán compartir), pero la investigación es mucho mejor de la que yo tenía hecha.
Cada cita tiene su respectiva fuente, así que podrán confirmar que el autor no exagera al decir cosas como que Peter Singer apoya que se usen discapacitados para experimentos médicos en vez de animales, o que Ingrid Newkirk considera inaceptable experimentar en animales aunque se encuentre la cura para el SIDA, etc.
También se encuentra información muy interesante, como el modo en que PETA (y similares) manipulan la información para encontrar más simpatizantes.
Mi mayor "molestia" de éste libro es que el autor considera el ser humano como superior sin tomar en cuenta nada más que la especie. Creo que somos, precisamente, una especie tan compleja que no se puede resumir todo en ese concepto ("human exceptionality"). De todos modos, no es la idea principal del libro, sino parte de la conclusión.
En fin, se lo recomiendo a cualquiera que quiera indagar más en el tema. Los derechos de los animales NO son lo mismo que el bienestar animal, y es éste último el que deberíamos estar apoyando.
Cada cita tiene su respectiva fuente, así que podrán confirmar que el autor no exagera al decir cosas como que Peter Singer apoya que se usen discapacitados para experimentos médicos en vez de animales, o que Ingrid Newkirk considera inaceptable experimentar en animales aunque se encuentre la cura para el SIDA, etc.
También se encuentra información muy interesante, como el modo en que PETA (y similares) manipulan la información para encontrar más simpatizantes.
Mi mayor "molestia" de éste libro es que el autor considera el ser humano como superior sin tomar en cuenta nada más que la especie. Creo que somos, precisamente, una especie tan compleja que no se puede resumir todo en ese concepto ("human exceptionality"). De todos modos, no es la idea principal del libro, sino parte de la conclusión.
En fin, se lo recomiendo a cualquiera que quiera indagar más en el tema. Los derechos de los animales NO son lo mismo que el bienestar animal, y es éste último el que deberíamos estar apoyando.
February 27, 2011
This was a great book about the animal rights movement that has arisen over the last few decades--their agenda, goals, and tactics. Kind of scary actually. This book differentiates animal rights from animal welfare, and it actually comes out very strong for animal welfare. The author supports treating animals humanely, arguing that our obligation to be humane to animals is one of the very things that distinguishes us from them. They certainly don't feel any such obligation to us.
June 28, 2010
Meh. While I agree with the substance of Smith's argument, I found the verbosity to be a challenge to get through(especially when he inserts overemotional phrases like "lunatic argument"). Maybe I just need to be more in the mood for philosophy?
December 21, 2013
A good thing...it differentiates between animal rights and animal welfare ( which I heart) but quite honeslty, I expected a more profound approach.
August 26, 2016
I really enjoyed this book. An overview on the tactics and thinking of animal rights groups and the deeper philosophical underpinings of their views.
December 23, 2014
Really interesting look at exactly what the problems with the animal rights movement are from an academic perspective.
January 9, 2012
astonishing
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews