Update: since posting this article in June of last year the controversy surrounding the singular specialness of human life has continued to rage. For many, the odd angst surrounding the death of a gorilla was their first contact with this unique brand of secular madness. Wesley J. Smith of National Review fame recently published an article entitled Now It’s ‘Posthumanist Ethical Pluralism’ that deals with this issue. The article is exceptional. I hope you’ll take the time to read through it. Below is my favorite quote from the article:
“If human life doesn’t have the highest ultimate objective value simply and merely because it is human–an equal value to be distinguished from all other life forms on the planet–there is no way to philosophically defend universal human rights. Moreover, if we can’t distinguish between our inherent value and that of animals, we will not elevate their status to our level but diminish our own to theirs.”
Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve heard about the death of Harambe the gorilla. In case, by some blessed miracle you’ve been able to escape the media madness surrounding this story, I’ll give you a quick summary. A small boy recently fell into the gorilla enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo; zoo officials, fearing for the child’s life, shot and killed the 450-pound gorilla and rescued the boy.
I’m not here to argue the merits of whether or not the parents were or were not at fault. Although, having two young children myself, I know just how quickly a child can slip from your sight and into danger. Neither do I have a solid opinion on whether or not the zoo was at fault for not securing the enclosure more adequately, what’s interesting to me is the bizarre social dilemma that has bubbled up to the surface because of this story. At the heart of the debate is a simple question: is a human life more valuable than an animal’s life (click here for a great article that details the ongoing debate)?
For most of my readership, this question is an absolute no brainer. Of course, a human child’s life is immensely more valuable than a gorilla’s life. But for many, this question is far from settled. We are trending on a societal trajectory that is going to wrestle with the question of the value of human life above animal life with increasing levels of intensity.
This should not be a surprise, it is, after all, the natural logical conclusion of a post-Christian, evolutionistic nation. If you reject a biblical worldview then you are left with a man-made, relativistic brand of morality. As my atheist friends would be quick to point out, it is possible to be an atheist and have morals. This is true. But their morality is subjective and open to interpretation, nuance, and circumstance.
For example, a moral relativist might say (and they often do) that war is immoral. But why? If there is no higher power who sets the standards of right and wrong than who gets to make the moral rules? Who gets to write the commandments that we all must follow? Without God, moral standards are chosen arbitrarily by those with the most power to impose their opinions. So, if human beings are just an accidental causation of a chemical reaction with no soul it’s only logical to wonder if we are really valuable at all? Why does any life have value for that matter?
Certainly, the slippery slope of evolutionary thought creates a moral conundrum; because if humans are just highly evolved animals what makes us better than lesser evolved animals? Without a higher authority, all actions are rendered nonmoral. Right and wrong, good and evil, etc. are completely idiosyncratic and without objective legitimacy.
Just to be clear, I really like animals. When Chip, my childhood dog died, I cried like a baby. I consider gorilla’s to be majestic and fascinating creatures, but they are creatures, not human beings. I think it’s tragic that circumstances caused Harambe to die. However, human life is immeasurably more valuable than animal life. The life of that one child is more valuable than every single animal in that zoo. Period.
My belief in the value of human life is deeply rooted in my biblical worldview. Human beings are created in the image of God and we are far more than flesh and blood. Our temporary bodies merely house our eternal souls. The soul is what separates us from the animals. God created animals and gave us dominion over them. Human versus animal equality should not enter into the picture at all.
But for those who have swallowed the theory of evolution and rejected the Bible, this question will continue to fester. As America becomes increasingly post-Christian, this debate will naturally rise to the forefront of the cultural conversation. This poses a tremendous opportunity for Christians because many who believe in evolution instinctively know that human life is superior to animal life. When they are forced to follow the logical conclusion of their belief system they find it hard to digest and repulsive to their sensibilities.
Even though we are living in a largely post-Christian culture there are still strong vestiges of biblical morality holding society together. In other words, many people have moral principles that are consistent with biblical principles rather than their underdeveloped post-modern beliefs. To clarify further, they still believe certain things that are consistent with biblical morality because they haven’t followed their own philosophies on down to their logical (or illogical) conclusions. Sometimes, helping to lead an intellectually honest and sincere person down their own philosophical sink hole shines a light on the real fallacies and dangers that lurk below.
In the meantime, if you don’t believe in God or the Bible you have no right to lecture me on morality of any kind. Your own belief system denies the reality of true morality and replaces it with social relativism. Social relativism is why the world has suffered genocide after genocide (including the mass genocide of unborn children) at the hands of godless governments. It also produces a growing segment of society that genuinely wonders if babies can be aborted (murdered) up to four months after birth, cheerfully sells aborted body parts over salad, and dryly kicks around the idea of population control because of an apocalyptic view of climate change (the secular version of the book of Revelations). When you lecture me (or anyone else) about morality you are playing God, and only the one true God gets to tell me what is moral and what is immoral.
Related articles: Is Faith Absurd?, A Pattern Of Persecution (What Does Hollywood Have In Common With ISIS?), Why Do So Many Christians Support Same-Sex Marriage?, Resist Irrelevant Relevance, 5 Key Subjects That We Must Address (If We Want To Retain Young Adults In Our Churches)
4 thoughts on “The Death of Harambe (How Moral Relativism Has Made It Controversial)”
[…] articles: The Death Of Harambe (How Moral Relativism Has Made It Controversial), A Pattern Of Persecution (What Does Hollywood Have In Common With ISIS?), Love Or […]
[…] – Book Review, Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) – Book Review, The Death Of Harambe (How Moral Reletavism Has Made It Controversial), Baptism “In Jesus’ Name” And The New Testament Greek, Is Technology Killing […]
[…] Have In Common), Right, Righteous & Self Righteous Judgements (Knowing The Difference), The Death of Harambe (How Moral Relitavism Has Made It Controversial), A Pattern of Persecution (What Does Hollywood Have In Common With ISIS?), Love Or Hate, The Words […]
Reblogged this on Apostolic Voice and commented:
Harambe might be old news the controversy surrounding the unique value and specialness of human life above that of animal life still rages. I have updated this article with a link to a recent National Review article by Wesley J. Smith. I encourage you to follow the link and read the entire article.
Comments are closed.