Christine Stevens Golden Rule Analysis

576 Words3 Pages
Throughout the ages, the Golden Rule has always remained: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Jesus spoke these words in Matthew 7:12, saying that this brief statement summed up the law. Usually interpreted as a mandate pertaining solely to human beings, Christine Stevens, an animal rights activist, took the Golden Rule a step further. She stated that the law not only applied to how people treat other humans, but to how people treat animals as well. Christine Stevens’ conclusion is flawed and inaccurate. She erroneously concluded that the biblical concept was meant to encompass all animal rights and humans’ treatment of them.
One reason why Christine Stevens’ conclusion is faulty is because, if the Golden Rule did apply to animals, it would prohibit us from clothing ourselves with their skins, using them as a source of food, and using them as a source of profit. It would be a sin to use a human being for any of these things, but it is the norm for animals. In the
…show more content…
As stated before, God cares about the human race, more so than he does animals. He placed the animals on the earth to meet the needs of mankind, and if the Golden Rule applied to animals’ rights, then mankind wouldn’t be able to use them to meet their needs. This doesn’t mean that animals should be abused, though. Animals are still one of God’s beautiful creations, and he gave us dominion over the animals to protect them and to care for them. In the end, though, God still values human beings more than he does animals.
Christine Stevens’ conclusion is flawed and inaccurate. The Golden Rule does not apply to animal rights and humans’ treatment of them. The Golden Rule is a law that Jesus put in place because he cares for the human race. Although God also loves his other creations, humans are special. The Golden Rule only pertains to how people treat each

More about Christine Stevens Golden Rule Analysis

Open Document