You and I are obviously more intelligent than elephants and whales. At least, I cannot imagine them writing this article on my laptop, dexterity aside. But they are obviously superior to us in size and better adapted to their habitats than we are to ours…By what measure are we to claim that we are superior and even unique among the world’s creatures?

From the “you can’t make this up” department: Colorado’s highest court recently ruled that elephants are not people. You probably didn’t need that clarification; nor did I. But the Nonhuman Rights Project apparently did.

They brought suit in the state, claiming that five elephants at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in Colorado Springs have shown signs of brain damage because the zoo is essentially a prison for such intelligent and social creatures. The group wants the elephants released to two accredited elephant sanctuaries in the US. However, the court determined that since they’re not human, the animals do not have the legal right to pursue their release.

Of course, this news does not suggest that elephants are not superior to humans in many ways. I would not want to get into a tug-of-war with one or try to live on an African plain alongside lions as they do.

Now consider the alligator in South Carolina that froze in an icy pond during the South’s recent deep freeze. You or I would have died. But officials explained, “When temperatures drop significantly, alligators can enter a state called brumation—similar to hibernation…During a hard freeze, they often stick their snouts above the water to breathe, while the rest of their bodies become immobilized in the icy depths.”

As they say, don’t try this at home.

And there’s the sperm whales who made the news when a diver caught their unusual sleeping pattern on video. The massive creatures float vertically while taking twelve-to-fifteen-minute naps near the ocean’s surface.

Is Peter Singer right?

The Princeton ethicist Peter Singer argues for what he calls “equal consideration of interests.” In his view, the interests of non-human animals should be considered equally with human interests. He claims that favoring human interests over animal interests is a “speciesist” stance akin to racism and sexism and, in his view, equally morally indefensible.

If all we had to go on was Mother Nature, we might be convinced.

You and I are obviously more intelligent than elephants and whales. At least, I cannot imagine them writing this article on my laptop, dexterity aside. But they are obviously superior to us in size and better adapted to their habitats than we are to ours. They don’t fear crime, drunk drivers, and terrorism as we do. They don’t die in car crashes or by falling down stairs at home.

By what measure are we to claim that we are superior and even unique among the world’s creatures?

Prof. Singer, being an atheist, would obviously say there is no such measure. As Christians, we would turn immediately to the biblical pronouncement that God created us “in his own image” (Genesis 1:27). He would reply that humans wrote those words and that we quoted them because they defend our position, not because they can be construed as objectively true.

In his view, we can have no intrinsic value, since no such values exist apart from the ability to suffer and to experience pleasure. Rather, we are valuable to the degree that we are valuable to others. His utilitarian ethic measures us by what we do for society.

Here’s the problem, and the reason for this article: I fear that many of us, in our deepest hearts, fear that Singer is right.

We need more to be more.

Peter Singer’s claim that we are merely animals whose value lies in our performance resonates with us because of the culture we inhabit.

Read More