Attitudes to non-human life and how religious belief might affect this

[Mock Turtle]

The Moral Status of Animals (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

"Is there something distinctive about humanity that justifies the idea that humans have moral status while non-humans do not? Providing an answer to this question has become increasingly important among philosophers as well as those outside of philosophy who are interested in our treatment of non-human animals. For some, answering this question will enable us to better understand the nature of human beings and the proper scope of our moral obligations. Some argue that there is an answer that can distinguish humans from the rest of the natural world. Many of those who accept this answer are interested in justifying certain human practices towards non-humans — practices that cause pain, discomfort, suffering and death. This latter group expects that in answering the question in a particular way, humans will be justified in granting moral consideration to other humans that is neither required nor justified when considering non-human animals. In contrast to this view, an increasing number of philosophers have argued that while humans are different in a variety of ways from each other and other animals, these differences do not provide a philosophical defense for denying non-human animals moral consideration. What the basis of moral consideration is and what it amounts to has been the source of much disagreement."

As many might have gleaned from my avatar, I do have a particular interest in our attitudes to other life, particularly those closer to humans in many ways. So not just a cheeky monkey then, although if seen this way I wouldn't be too offended!

The question then is, to what extent does any religious belief affect how you view other life on Earth, particularly those seemingly displaying many of the things that we tend to take for granted as being in the human realm, such as - intelligence, social bonding, morality, ability to interact meaningfully with other species (not just eating them!), etc., and is there any conflict between what you believe compared with any religious teaching?

For myself, I think we will possibly be at a turning point over the next decades, since we are continually discovering much about animal behaviour and life so as to challenge any previous thinking and how we should treat other species, especially those showing very human-like traits and/or behaviour. There is even the possibility, for example, that AI might be the breakthrough into animal communication, with us perhaps be able to do this with some of the species displaying language skills quite similar to our own. And of course there are huge implications as to how we should treat other life when we do discover so much more about them.

 

[Augustus]

Is there something distinctive about humanity that justifies the idea that humans have moral status while non-humans do not?

Not scientifically, but our entire social order is built around human exceptionalism and we are very unlikely to change that. We might take care to reduce some of the more egregious harms we do, but we are never going to give up the idea that humans are intrinsically more worthy than animals.

Even if we all became vegans (which I highly doubt will happen), modern human existence is still harmful to animals in ways we will not be willing to change.

People might talk about advances that have been made in animal rights and reduced animal cruelty, but I imagine we kill more of them today than at any point in human history.

I'm not sure this counts as progress, and I'm sceptical that much will change in this regard in the foreseeable future.

 

[Grandliseur]

The Moral Status of Animals (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

"Is there something distinctive about humanity that justifies the idea that humans have moral status while non-humans do not? Providing an answer to this question has become increasingly important among philosophers as well as those outside of philosophy who are interested in our treatment of non-human animals. For some, answering this question will enable us to better understand the nature of human beings and the proper scope of our moral obligations. Some argue that there is an answer that can distinguish humans from the rest of the natural world. Many of those who accept this answer are interested in justifying certain human practices towards non-humans — practices that cause pain, discomfort, suffering and death. This latter group expects that in answering the question in a particular way, humans will be justified in granting moral consideration to other humans that is neither required nor justified when considering non-human animals. In contrast to this view, an increasing number of philosophers have argued that while humans are different in a variety of ways from each other and other animals, these differences do not provide a philosophical defense for denying non-human animals moral consideration. What the basis of moral consideration is and what it amounts to has been the source of much disagreement."

As many might have gleaned from my avatar, I do have a particular interest in our attitudes to other life, particularly those closer to humans in many ways. So not just a cheeky monkey then, although if seen this way I wouldn't be too offended!

The question then is, to what extent does any religious belief affect how you view other life on Earth, particularly those seemingly displaying many of the things that we tend to take for granted as being in the human realm, such as - intelligence, social bonding, morality, ability to interact meaningfully with other species (not just eating them!), etc., and is there any conflict between what you believe compared with any religious teaching?

For myself, I think we will possibly be at a turning point over the next decades, since we are continually discovering much about animal behaviour and life so as to challenge any previous thinking and how we should treat other species, especially those showing very human-like traits and/or behaviour. There is even the possibility, for example, that AI might be the breakthrough into animal communication, with us perhaps be able to do this with some of the species displaying language skills quite similar to our own. And of course there are huge implications as to how we should treat other life when we do discover so much more about them.

While I do eat meat, I despise those who go hunting for fun, or fish and kill for fun. If you want to eat fish and catch this, fine, I have no problem with that. Trophy hunters, on the other hand, I would like to see their heads mounted on the walls instead of the animals they kill.

The ones who mistreat animals, who think shooting an animal and hurt them leaving them with bullet wounds, I think should be given long prison sentences.
While some of our pets need to be trained, even put in place when doing something they mustn't, biting people, etc. this should not be serious mistreatment. I am not an animal trainer and do not know what is needed: so, I'll leave this problem to those that do know what they are doing.

Religiously speaking, we were put here as caretakers of animals and the planet, not as rapists of said planet.

 

[Valjean]

Augustus makes good points.

We're a tribal species. It's not natural for our species to extend moral consideration to those outside our own tribe.

We live in much larger tribes today. Socialization has managed to extend this tribalism somewhat; to expand our moral universe, but the veneer is thin, as our history of exploitation -- or annihilation-- of outgroups illustrates.

If we can so easily withdraw moral consideration from others of our own species, it's little wonder that we routinely exploit non humans with no moral qualms.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Not scientifically, but our entire social order is built around human exceptionalism and we are very unlikely to change that. We might take care to reduce some of the more egregious harms we do, but we are never going to give up the idea that humans are intrinsically more worthy than animals.

Is it not possible, that when we discover more about animal behaviour that we will in fact begin to see many other animal species rather differently than we do now? The large number of mostly amusing (and also informative) videos on Youtube might be having an effect here, apart from all the animal research going on, for example (and probably not new to many):

... Orang utan finds magic trick hilarious

... Clever orang utan makes a fair trade with human

... Lions Treat Woman Like the Leader of the Pride

... ANIMAL REUNIONS - 7 MOST HEARTWARMING ANIMAL REUNIONS WITH OWNERS

... A Bear, Lion and Tiger Form an Inseparable Trio

Polar Bear Purrs When Cuddling with Her Human Dad
Jessica the Hippo Raised by Human Parents
Jinjing The Penguin - Swims 5000 Miles Every Year To Visit The Man Who Saved Him
FUNNY Babies and Monkey Become Best Friend | Funny Babies and Pets
Baby crawls over to husky to say ‘hi’ – then dad catches the dog’s beautiful reaction on video
Cat Rescues Little Boy From Dog Attack - Cat saves boy
Smart Animals Compilation

The dog climbing up the wall (last video) is particularly amusing, since this is a recognised technique in rock-climbing, back-and-footing .. lol .. and the dog apparently jumping the queue to get another tidbit, surely that is intersting.

Even if we all became vegans (which I highly doubt will happen), modern human existence is still harmful to animals in ways we will not be willing to change.

People might talk about advances that have been made in animal rights and reduced animal cruelty, but I imagine we kill more of them today than at any point in human history.

I'm not sure this counts as progress, and I'm sceptical that much will change in this regard in the foreseeable future.

True, it will be slow progress, but I'm wondering about those animals a bit closer to humans. Will we get to understand them better such that we treat them rather differently before possibly wiping them out?

 

[joe1776]

...The question then is, to what extent does any religious belief affect how you view other life on Earth, particularly those seemingly displaying many of the things that we tend to take for granted as being in the human realm, such as - intelligence, social bonding, morality, ability to interact meaningfully with other species (not just eating them!), etc., and is there any conflict between what you believe compared with any religious teaching?...

I have no religion. However, on my own, I've studied human morality and tried to keep up with the research. The question you asked might have been preceded by "To what extent do you believe that your religious belief has affected your treatment of other people?"

Most people think that our morals are taught and learned. They think their religion has been part of that training. In my opinion, they're mistaken. We are born with the moral intuition we refer to as conscience. Research over the past 30 years or so is confirming my position, although psychology classes are still teaching the same thing they were taught 50 years ago.

The good news is that we humans are making moral progress. We are treating each other--and the other animals--better right now that at any time in the past. My recent post, still up on the board, offered evidence to support this claim. I might have added to my list of moral advances that animal rights groups didn't exist 50 years ago, we are treating the other animals better as well.

My guess is that most who answer your question, if they have a religion, will believe that it had a positive effect on their treatment of other animals. I don't think religion has any effect.

From the New York Times: "According to Yale psychologist Paul Bloom, humans are born with a hard-wired morality. A deep sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. His research shows that babies and toddlers can judge the goodness and badness of others' actions; they want to reward the good and punish the bad; they act to help those in distress; they feel guilt, shame, pride, and righteous anger."

 

[Mock Turtle]

Religiously speaking, we were put here as caretakers of animals and the planet, not as rapists of said planet.

So this is perhaps one thing that has come from a religious belief? Many, including myself, would argue that this is wrong and might be one thing holding back any progress in our relationships with other creatures. We might be the de facto guardians of other life on Earth, and doing a poor job it seems, but apart from any religious belief, I doubt it is rational to see us as being intrinsically better or having a right to be in charge over other life.

As my avatar indicates - a plea from all non-human life -- it is their planet too.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Augustus makes good points.

We're a tribal species. It's not natural for our species to extend moral consideration to those outside our own tribe.

We live in much larger tribes today. Socialization has managed to extend this tribalism somewhat; to expand our moral universe, but the veneer is thin, as our history of exploitation -- or annihilation-- of outgroups illustrates.

If we can so easily withdraw moral consideration from others of our own species, it's little wonder that we routinely exploit non humans with no moral qualms.

Surely we are more advanced than this though. We did leave much of our tribal ways long ago (globalisation and all that) and should be looking towards the future. Much of life all around us, as pointed out, will not be here at the rate we are going unless we do consider our impact on other life rather more.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I have no religion. However, on my own, I've studied human morality and tried to keep up with the research. The question you asked might have been preceded by "To what extent do you believe that your religious belief has affected your treatment of other people?"

Now, now, one thing at a time. it's all about the animals, this post.

Most people think that our morals are taught and learned. They think their religion has been part of that training. In my opinion, they're mistaken. We are born with the moral intuition we refer to as conscience. Research over the past 30 years or so is confirming my position, although psychology classes are still teaching the same thing they were taught 50 years ago.

The good news is that we humans are making moral progress. We are treating each other--and the other animals--better right now that at any time in the past. My recent post, still up on the board, offered evidence to support this claim. I might have added to my list of moral advances that animal rights groups didn't exist 50 years ago, we are treating the other animals better as well.

My guess is that most who answer your question, if they have a religion, will believe that it had a positive effect on their treatment of other animals. I don't think religion has any effect.

Well, the previous answer by Grandliseur might contradict this, as although we are essentially in authority over other life, we got here by dint of evolution rather than having that right given to us. In my view. I'll agree about our morality though, since it does appear to be the case that many other animal species do show behaviour very akin to morality, and it is highly likely that morality existed long before any religion came into existence - by necessity.

 

[Grandliseur]

I doubt it is rational to see us as being intrinsically better or having a right to be in charge over other life.

And, you prefer our superiority being expressed by our mistreatment of animals instead of being their big brother, trying to protect them. Good job!!

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Buddhism teaches that the suffering of all sentient beings is unideal. That includes other forms of animal life. There may be cases where people argue for mistreating animals being something of a necessary evil, but it is no less suffering than when we inflict it on one another.

I don't see that we really should need Buddhism to tell us this. Doesn't it seem like a given that animals feel pain and undergo extreme torments sometimes at the hands of people?

The Buddha is said to have pitied animals intensely, for what he saw as their helplessness in the face of humans. Some of his attributed miracles are healing docile animal life like birds.

The Buddha didn't see suffering as different wherever it occurs. It's still suffering. Since Buddhists concern ourselves with the truths about suffering the Buddha taught- we should ideally be kind to other sentient beings. Speaking for my own worldview.

 

[joe1776]

Now, now, one thing at a time. it's all about the animals, this post.

I make the point that, if religion doesn't affect our moral treatment of other humans, then we can't expect it to have an influence on our treatment of other animals.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I have no religion. However, on my own, I've studied human morality and tried to keep up with the research. The question you asked might have been preceded by "To what extent do you believe that your religious belief has affected your treatment of other people?"

Most people think that our morals are taught and learned. They think their religion has been part of that training. In my opinion, they're mistaken. We are born with the moral intuition we refer to as conscience. Research over the past 30 years or so is confirming my position, although psychology classes are still teaching the same thing they were taught 50 years ago.

The good news is that we humans are making moral progress. We are treating each other--and the other animals--better right now that at any time in the past. My recent post, still up on the board, offered evidence to support this claim. I might have added to my list of moral advances that animal rights groups didn't exist 50 years ago, we are treating the other animals better as well.

My guess is that most who answer your question, if they have a religion, will believe that it had a positive effect on their treatment of other animals. I don't think religion has any effect.

From the New York Times: "According to Yale psychologist Paul Bloom, humans are born with a hard-wired morality. A deep sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. His research shows that babies and toddlers can judge the goodness and badness of others' actions; they want to reward the good and punish the bad; they act to help those in distress; they feel guilt, shame, pride, and righteous anger."

I've just finished reading Bloom's Against Empathy as it happens, an interesting read, and it's difficult to argue convincingly against the case he makes. Not read any of his other works. And I tend to agree that we have some morality inbuilt - the extent might vary though.

 

[Mock Turtle]

And, you prefer our superiority being expressed by our mistreatment of animals instead of being their big brother, trying to protect them. Good job!!

I don't have a preference for either actually. I would rather we did the best for ourselves as a species as well as recognising all other life has an equal right to a life and not to be abused and/or exploited by us simply because we can.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Buddhism teaches that the suffering of all sentient beings is unideal. That includes other forms of animal life. There may be cases where people argue for mistreating animals being something of a necessary evil, but it is no less suffering than when we inflict it on one another.

I don't see that we really should need Buddhism to tell us this. Doesn't it seem like a given that animals feel pain and undergo extreme torments sometimes at the hands of people?

I quite agree, and it seems to have taken us a long time to understand - which some will still dispute - that many creatures do feel pain and have much richer inner lives than we ever suspected.

The Buddha is said to have pitied animals intensely, for what he saw as their helplessness in the face of humans. Some of his attributed miracles are healing docile animal life like birds.

The Buddha didn't see suffering as different wherever it occurs. It's still suffering. Since Buddhists concern ourselves with the truths about suffering the Buddha taught- we should ideally be kind to other sentient beings. Speaking for my own worldview.

Quite, and I have already mentioned elsewhere that the nearest I get to a religious belief is with Buddhism.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I make the point that, if religion doesn't affect our moral treatment of other humans, then we can't expect it to have an influence on our treatment of other animals.

I'll leave that to the many who do have a religious belief. I'm not so encumbered. My concerns are how we treat other life regardless of any other considerations and whether having any religious belief seriously affects this.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I never tell anyone that they ought to become a Buddhist outright, but I do offer for consideration the facts as Buddhism sees them. That the practice of the path of meritorious. That it expands a person's ability to do good in the world, by invoking the infinite merits of the teaching.

Buddhists believe in good karma produced by action, and in good karma produced by merits. The Buddha, in Mahayana view being the reflection of Ultimate Reality, is able to convey infinite merits.

Whenever Buddhists chant mantras and the like, we believe this generates a field in which the Buddha's spontaneous merits can sprout up. In other words, we don't exactly know how the practice will benefit the world- only that we believe it will.

I tell non-Buddhists this for consideration when they express interest in Buddhism to me- because I think it's important they know. That Buddhism offers a way for us to help beings beyond just our own limited abilities.

I'm not telling anyone to go become Buddhist in light of this knowledge, but only offering it for consideration. As Buddhists we are also told not to hoard up the Dharma treasures. Meaning- keep the teachings hidden in plain sight.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I never tell anyone that they ought to become a Buddhist outright, but I do offer for consideration the facts as Buddhism sees them. That the practice of the path of meritorious. That it expands a person's ability to do good in the world, by invoking the infinite merits of the teaching.

Buddhists believe in good karma produced by action, and in good karma produced by merits. The Buddha, in Mahayana view being the reflection of Ultimate Reality, is able to convey infinite merits.

Whenever Buddhists chant mantras and the like, we believe this generates a field in which the Buddha's spontaneous merits can sprout up. In other words, we don't exactly know how the practice will benefit the world- only that we believe it will.

I tell non-Buddhists this for consideration when they express interest in Buddhism to me- because I think it's important they know. That Buddhism offers a way for us to help beings beyond just our own limited abilities.

I'm not telling anyone to go become Buddhist in light of this knowledge, but only offering it for consideration. As Buddhists we are also told not to hoard up the Dharma treasures. Meaning- keep the teachings hidden in plain sight.

I have looked at the main tenets of Buddhism and they do make eminent sense to me. Karma, I can take or leave since I have had experiences where I could point to this but on the other hand it might just have been good luck. And I have also had experiences where I know it was solely down to my own efforts - like saving my own life a few times. It's probably the past and future lives aspect that I would fail to integrate into my overall belief system.

 

[Quintessence]

Not scientifically, but our entire social order is built around human exceptionalism and we are very unlikely to change that. We might take care to reduce some of the more egregious harms we do, but we are never going to give up the idea that humans are intrinsically more worthy than animals.

What's your take on indigenous religions and pre-Abrahamic social orders, though, where animism was the rule rather than the exception? I've gotten the impression that de-personalizing non-humans is a relatively modern phenomena in the grand scheme of the human species. Tribal societies had relationships with other-than-human persons that were respected and managed. Note that an implication of this is absolutely not vegetarianism or veganism; historical animistic cultures didn't do that (nor do the few that remain). But they did treat non-humans as moral subjects and as persons. Certainly more than contemporary Western culture does.

 

[syo]

The question then is, to what extent does any religious belief affect how you view other life on Earth, particularly those seemingly displaying many of the things that we tend to take for granted as being in the human realm, such as - intelligence, social bonding, morality, ability to interact meaningfully with other species (not just eating them!), etc., and is there any conflict between what you believe compared with any religious teaching?

i view animals as perfect beings.