The Weekly Standard's Wesley Smith issues a warning against dependence on the yuck-factor to safeguard our moral axioms.
Most people take human exceptionalism for granted. They can no longer afford to do so. The great philosophical question of the 21st Century is going to be whether we will knock humans off the pedestal of moral exceptionalism and instead define ourselves as just another animal in the forest. The stakes of the coming debate couldn't be more important: It is our exalted moral status that both bestows special rights upon us and imposes unique and solemn moral responsibilities --including the human duty not to abuse animals.
Smith illustrates this point by means of a grotesque (and regrettably concrete) celebration of diversity in Washington and its attendant controversy. WARNING: includes post-exceptionalist content.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our September expenses ($33,710 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Aug. 31, 2005 11:46 AM ET USA
Visceral recoil from this grotesquerie is the only authentic reaction by a species concerned with self-preservation. The nationwide howling -- accompanied by the aside "what a sick ____"-- that greeted the news of the pervert's death has me assured, for the moment, that our collective sanity has not departed. Peter Singer is himself an immoral sensationalist. Scr-w him and the horse he rode in on.
Posted by: benedictusoblatus -
Aug. 31, 2005 11:41 AM ET USA
A sick society needs laws against bestiality. A society in its death throws objects to the same. A law criminalizing this disgusting behavior would likely discourage some perverts from engaging in it. Of course the problem may be self-limiting if the law does not pass. We can hope that the perverts will continue to have sex with this particular horse, and others like it. May God have mercy on these incredibly sick people.
Posted by: patriot6908 -
Aug. 31, 2005 9:27 AM ET USA
The truly sad part of this story is that a moral, rational and sane society would have dismissed PETA, Peter Singer and their ilk as sick and deranged people who should be marginalized somewhere with the Aryan Nation, KKK and other assorted psychopaths. Instead, we find them smack in the mainstream--including within a segment of liberal Christianity; and gaining adherents among those who buy into every trite, banal and "new" idea that floats out of deranged minds.
Posted by: Pseudodionysius -
Aug. 31, 2005 8:57 AM ET USA
It will, indeed, be interesting to see PETA join forces with NARAL in helping to draft "informed consent" laws. Examples abound. I look forward to NARAL petitioning to allow under age animals who conceive offspring out of wedlock -- even if by artificial genetic means -- to not be required to notify their birth parents.