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

[sayak83]

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.

Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism are built on the essential continuity of all life through both ecological, spiritual and rebirth cycles. It is great that science is increasingly showing the sophistication of the inner mental lives of animals. I hope it's not too late to stop the rape and pillage of our planet's ecosystems from the crass attitude that comes from thinking animals are mere dumb beasts who are mere resources to be exploited by human kind.

 

[Nous]

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?

While not a particularly "religious belief," the moral precept known as the Golden Rule seems to me to provide adequate guidance on how to treat non-human creatures who experience suffering.

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.

I agree that humans' recognition of the moral status of non-human animals is expanding rather quickly these days. There is definitely a direction of the trend in the widening inclusion of species and prohibited acts in anti-cruelty laws. I believe that one day, if we don't destroy the planet first, the raising, using and killing of animals will be looked upon as barbaric and slavery is today.

 

[Nous]

i view animals as perfect beings.

Beautiful. Yes, perfect.

 

[pearl]

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

Well said.

 

[Sayf_ibn_Umar]

This does not directly answer your question in the OP, but you might be interested in an article in this book. The article is called "The Darwinian Problem of Evil" and it's basically an overview of the argument that the suffering of animals shows that a theistic god does not exist. What's most interesting in it is to see the views of animals some theologians have adopted or proposed to avoid this problem, e.g. trying to claim that animals somehow don't truly feel pain. Very interesting but maybe not a fun read for an animal lover.

 

[sun rise]

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,

My belief is that the developing soul migrates through forms of greater and greater complexity specifically including the plant and (non-human) animal kingdoms before it becomes perfectly developed in humans.

Humans thus have "impressions" in their internal structure that comes from animals and that includes all the emotions.

That means that I view all life as one whole. I'm not a vegetarian but have a deep rooted sense that comes from Native Americans who thanked animals for giving themselves as food.

 

[pearl]

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

Its not a matter of being in charge, but the belief that neither life, especially the vulnerable, and the planet itself is not to be exploited. Without the help of humans these animals succumb to exploitation. You're right that we have a lot to learn from the higher function animals whether land or sea. Hopefully we realize this before they are extent!

 

[Enoch07]

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

Sure, because they taste good.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.



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?

Those people in the videos likely aren't very smart if you ask me.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism are built on the essential continuity of all life through both ecological, spiritual and rebirth cycles. It is great that science is increasingly showing the sophistication of the inner mental lives of animals. I hope it's not too late to stop the rape and pillage of our planet's ecosystems from the crass attitude that comes from thinking animals are mere dumb beasts who are mere resources to be exploited by human kind.

I am against animal exploitation, but I think most smart people would recognize animals are far more controlled by instinct then the qualities we have as sapient beings.

 

[Deeje]

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 think religious beliefs impact greatly on how humans treat animals and each other. Bible believers e.g. see humans as superior to animals intellectually, creatively and in many other ways....with moral capacity, conscience, empathy, imagination, concept of past, present and future.....we are superior to animals....even those who appear to be similar to ourselves. How we use those qualities however, is another story.

The Bible’s narrative places humans as representatives of the Creator here, overseeing the lives of other animals as fellow inhabitants of planet earth, to act as caretakers for them. No other creature displays this capacity. Those in the animal kingdom govern their lives and activities largely by pre-programmed instinct. (which to me is a strong indicator of an Intelligent Programmer) This ensures their survival and man was supposed to be their guardians to make sure that their environment could sustain them and correct anything that got out of balance in some way.

The Bible also explains why humans lost their capacity to represent the Creator in this important role, and why we now treat both animal and human life as expendable if we have a selfish or justifiable motive for mistreating or killing them.

In ancient cultures such as the American Indians, respect for the life of an animal consumed as food was always shown. The Great Spirit was thanked for the provision of food for the tribe and every part of the animal served a purpose...nothing was wasted. The Provider, as well as the animal was always given due respect.

If we treat animals as the Creator intended, then we will co-exist with them and give them the respect they deserve. The videos you provided demonstrate that we have an enormous capacity for peaceful co-existence with animals (even wild animals) and other humans, if we see them as the Creator does. Not as enemies to be hunted down, or killed for sport, or used for experimentation known to deliberately produce suffering for reasons of vanity in the cosmetic industry.

If humans cannot respect human life, how can we expect them to value animal life?

Respect for all life should be the norm......but humans got carried away with their own importance and ruined everything. I have a strong belief that all things will be restored to the way they should be, in the very near future.

 

[Katzpur]

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

The little girl in the bonus segment at the end could have been me. Seriously, I can see myself in that child so clearly. I really don't have words to express the love I feel for animals. They make life worth living, and I owe so much to them (even to the little kitten which, as I type, is trying to climb up my legs to get in my lap an digging her claws into me as she does). When I wake up each morning and look into the six little eyes of my furry kids, my heart absolutely bursts with love for them.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I'm not an "either/or" type of person. How I treat a dolphin will be different than how I treat a worm. I feel "personhood" is a spectrum, not a concrete thing, much like how life becomes vague and ill-defined when you get to the point of viruses and such. I try not to step on bugs but I won't cry if I do accidentally because I'm bigger than them and sometimes it's unavoidable. I don't prefer getting rid of ant colonies because I figure ant colonies prevent termite colonies, what with territorial-ism and stuff. I think any nonhuman who exhibits a personality or passes the mirror test should be counted as a person, even if we don't give full civil rights (not because I don't think they deserve it, but I wonder why nonhumans would even CARE since they don't participate in our abstract government). I can't stop from killing lifeforms. My immune system kills microscopic lifeforms I'm unaware of. I can only try "damage control".

 

[Valjean]

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.

We altered our psychology through culture, but our neurology and psychology remains largely Pleistocene. our civilized behavior is a veneer.
You can dress an ape in a tuxedo and teach it which fork to use, but deep down, it remains an ape.

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.

In fact, historically it's been used to excuse and justify all manner of exploitation and cruelty. We remain tribal. Scratch the surface and we're killer apes.

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.

Ethology does show an innate sense of 'morality' in many animals, but clearly our facility in overriding it when expedient is evidence of its shallowness.

 

[Trailblazer]

This does not directly answer your question in the OP, but you might be interested in an article in this book. The article is called "The Darwinian Problem of Evil" and it's basically an overview of the argument that the suffering of animals shows that a theistic god does not exist. What's most interesting in it is to see the views of animals some theologians have adopted or proposed to avoid this problem, e.g. trying to claim that animals somehow don't truly feel pain. Very interesting but maybe not a fun read for an animal lover.

I look forward to reading your article. I am a believer with a religion, but I am not on board with many of my fellow believers when it comes to the subject of animals and suffering and God. I really do wonder how a benevolent God would allow animals to suffer and die. Here is the reason: I believe that humans have free will and an immortal soul; so because of free will humans are responsible for a lot of their own suffering, and because they have an immortal soul they have recompense in an afterlife. Animals have no free will so they are in no way responsible for any of their suffering, and we have no way of knowing whether animals survive death in the form of spirits because that has never been revealed in any scriptures.

So I ask other religious people why was it too much trouble for an All-Powerful and All-Knowing God to have His Messenger/Prophet write something about animals and whether they survive physical death? I also ask them why they believe a benevolent God allows animals to suffer in this world with no explanation as to why?

Needless to say, I have an atheist leaning although I definitely believe God exists. That might sound like a contradiction, but human beings are complicated.

Finally, for the record, I treasure animals and my life revolves around them. We have 11 Persian cats and we feed and water all the outdoor animals and birds and cats that come on our rural property. I am often quoted as saying that I love my cats more than life itself. Needless to say, I am not that fond of life in the physical world that God created because it is a storehouse of suffering. However, the subject of human suffering is a subject for another day.

 

[Augustus]

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.

There is certainly some truth to this, particularly regarding the treatment of animals as commodities in the modern world. Many societies that were closer to nature would have had relationship with animals that was based on assigning them greater worth and respect.

I'm no expert on such issues so I could be wrong, but any cultural groups that didn't operate under the de facto presumption of human exceptionalism would be very rare to non-existent.

All animals put their needs above other species' needs, we just have more harmful ways we are able to exercise this I suppose.

 

[Mock Turtle]

While not a particularly "religious belief," the moral precept known as the Golden Rule seems to me to provide adequate guidance on how to treat non-human creatures who experience suffering.

I agree that humans' recognition of the moral status of non-human animals is expanding rather quickly these days. There is definitely a direction of the trend in the widening inclusion of species and prohibited acts in anti-cruelty laws. I believe that one day, if we don't destroy the planet first, the raising, using and killing of animals will be looked upon as barbaric and slavery is today.

The Golden Rule, or its inverse as many would choose, does seem to underlie most religious beliefs anyway. I would agree with this but with the addition of Kant's point - act by that maxim which you can at the same time will as a universal law. But both might be seen as rather open to interpretation. They are good enough for me however. And I tend to agree with your last sentence.

 

[Mock Turtle]

This does not directly answer your question in the OP, but you might be interested in an article in this book. The article is called "The Darwinian Problem of Evil" and it's basically an overview of the argument that the suffering of animals shows that a theistic god does not exist. What's most interesting in it is to see the views of animals some theologians have adopted or proposed to avoid this problem, e.g. trying to claim that animals somehow don't truly feel pain. Very interesting but maybe not a fun read for an animal lover.

Thanks - I'll add that to my list of books. I am in danger of having more unread books than read at the moment though!

 

[Trailblazer]

I think religious beliefs impact greatly on how humans treat animals and each other. Bible believers e.g. see humans as superior to animals intellectually, creatively and in many other ways....with moral capacity, conscience, empathy, imagination, concept of past, present and future.....we are superior to animals....even those who appear to be similar to ourselves. How we use those qualities however, is another story.

I am well aware of how the Bible believers and other Abrahamic religious believers view animals as superior to humans. One cannot deny that humans are more intelligent and have other qualities that the non-human animals do not have, but I very much dislike the whole idea that humans are superior. Of course, one of the religious arguments is that only humans can know and love God so that makes them better, and I do not go for that one either.

Why did (a purportedly benevolent) God create animals only to allow them to suffer and die, sometimes horrible deaths? That is what the Bible believers and all the others who believe what they do need to answer. Unfortunately, any answers they come up with will be what the nonbelievers call religious apologetics.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Sure, because they taste good.

Hmmmm. You might have said this was from a quoted article and not what I actually said.