I have been a long-time reader and occasional commenter over at Hugo Schwyzer’s blog. Although I disagree with much of Hugo’s writing and belief system, I’ve found his work to be challenging to me as a Christian and as a man. Less nobly, I’ve been amused at his moralistic self-contradictions; just as one example, like many people with his type of uber-Green views, Hugo flies all over the world with nary a twinge of conscience, completely blind to how discrediting his behavior is to his ideals. (But he buys carbon credits, so that makes it all right. Eye-roll.)

Hugo embraces the animal rights movement and is personally a vegan – a welcome sign of consistency, I suppose, since one might expect him to advocate for animal rights while eating meat constantly and buying “vegetable credits”. However, his elevation of the moral status of animals has gone past the point of reason. It is arguable that research on vole behavior and brain chemistry (involving the killing of the animals) might not be justifiable; certainly, it is a reasonable position to be opposed to such research. (Although Amanda Marcotte, of all people, chimes in with a comment that points out why such research is valuable.)

In the comments, though, Hugo goes on to make a point that is simply, incontrovertibly, around-the-bend moonshine batshit insane. Regarding his father, who died a few years ago, Hugo writes:

I would not sacrifice the life of a single vole or monkey or rat so that my father could have lived. And I loved that man with all my heart — but I know, in the final analysis, that all living and sentient, pain and joy-feeling creatures are equally valuable.

I have to say that, with sympathy to Hugo’s hypothetical moral dilemma, I don’t know a meaningful definition of “love” which would prioritize a vole’s life over a person’s. “I love you, but not enough to kill this little hairy rat to save your life.” Yeah, great, thanks. There’s probably a Hallmark card for that.

But it’s the closing phrase that is truly mad. All sentient life is equally valuable? A dog is a pig is a rat is a baby? Two ferrets trump one human infant? This is Singer-esque, and it’s morally insane. Valuing life is a good thing. Doing so in a hyper-egalitarian, “everything is equal” fashion, is nuts. Hugo is aware, not that his position is crazy, but that his advocacy for it is turning people off; he’s announced a moratorium on animal rights blogging for the rest of the year. Hopefully in that time of reflection he will come to a more moderate place.