Animal Ethics
In order to see the importance in helping children to challenge unfair animal representations, some knowledge of the animal ethics movement is helpful. The idea that humans are superior to animals has a long tradition in our culture and it is reflected in the way animals are portrayed through books, television, and films. If you feel that is it important as your role as educator to guide children in gaining a more fair and positive view of animals, then knowing where you stand on issues of animal ethics is crucial. Your feelings about the use of animals will guide the items you select for your class room as well as the conversations you have with children. However, it is worthwhile to acknowledge that animal ethics is a big topic and it can seem even bigger when trying to encourage children to consider animals in a way that is counterculture. It is normal to feel that one hasn't reached a final conclusion of what they feel is right regarding the use of animals. Even after learning about animal ethics it is expected that you will still have questions about where to draw the line. But these questions are all a part of the process and we want to encourage children to ask them as well.
Below is only a brief discussion of animal ethics. For further reading I would suggest the books Ethics and Animals: An Introduction by Lori Gruen, Animal Rights and Human Morality by Bernard Rollin, and An Introduction to Animals and Visual Culture by Randy Malamud
Below is only a brief discussion of animal ethics. For further reading I would suggest the books Ethics and Animals: An Introduction by Lori Gruen, Animal Rights and Human Morality by Bernard Rollin, and An Introduction to Animals and Visual Culture by Randy Malamud
Influential Philosophers of the Past
Rene Descartes likened animals to machines and asserted that they do not have minds and are void of consciousness, therefore not sentient. He thought that only humans possess souls because having a soul is related to having a mind (“Rene Descartes”). Descartes proposed that animals respond merely by reflex and so even screams that we would associate with pain, He would attribute to a mechanical response like the squeaking of a chair when you sit down on it.
Immanuel Kant believed that we have indirect duties to animals meaning that the duties are not focused on the well-being of the animal but of the human who might be negatively affected as a result of the harm done (“The moral status of animals”, 2003). For example hitting a house cat would be a wrong done to the owner because the sadness she would feel about the incident. It is akin to if I were to break her window or steal her favourite sweater. It is not about the animal’s feelings or the animal being a victim; it is about the human who is in relationship with the animal.
Jeremy Bentham, known as the founding father of modern utilitarianism, argued that a being’s capacity to suffer qualifies them for entry into the moral community (Singer, 1979).
The writings of philosophers Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas made a profound impact on Western thought including how we think about animals and justify our use of them for human ends. Pythagoras who was one of the most influential Greek philosophers, known for being an authority on where souls went after death. He believed that both animals and plants have souls. He was a vegetarian and argued that animals have the ability to feel pain and pleasure and should not be harmed for the sake of human utility (Corse, 2010).
However, Pythagoras did not have nearly as much influence on the culture as Greek philosopher and scientist Aristotle did. Aristotle that thought only humans possessed rationality, and since animals are not rational beings they do not need inclusion in the moral community (Rollins, 2006). He argued that there was a natural hierarchy and since animals lacked reason they were on the lower end of this hierarchy. Those at the higher end of the hierarchy possessed both the right and the responsibility to use those on the lower end. This led to the Stoics denying that animals had any ability to think, and they existed only for human use (Gruen, 2011).
St.Augustine, a Christian theologian and philosopher who was a major influence on the development on Western thought and and Western Christianity, wrote in his book The City of God that animals are irrational and therefore not included in the command ‘Thou shalt not kill’. Furthermore, since animals lack reason they are subject to human use (Schaff, 1890). Thomas Aquinas, who was a Catholic priest, philosopher and theologian who has had a major impact on Western thought and philosophy. His best known-work is The Summa Theoligiae which was written to be a pedagogical manual for theologians and a statement of Catholic theology. It is known as one of the most influential works of Western literature. In writing about ‘Is it unlawful to kill dumb animals?’ Aquinas states in the Summa Theoligiae:
There is no sin in using a thing for the purpose for which it is. Now the order of things is such that the imperfect are for the perfect, even as in the process of generation nature proceeds from imperfection to perfection. Hence it is that just as in the generation of a man there is first a living thing, then an animal, and lastly a man, so too things, like the plants, which merely have life, are all alike for animals, and all animals are for man. Wherefore it is not unlawful if man use plants for the good of animals, and animals for the good of man, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 3)
(II-II, Q.64, Art. 1).
Aquinas goes on to say how life must be taken away in the process of animals using plants for food and men using animals for food and this is justified because God tells Noah that all moving things shall be food just as He gave the green plant. Animals and plants therefore do not exist for themselves but they exist for man. If someone hurts an animal it is not a sinful because he hurt the animal but because he damaged another person’s property (II-II, Q.64, Art. 1).
In making these claims Aquinas is stating that animals are a utility that exist only for human ends. He quotes God telling Noah that any moving thing is to be eaten, however it should be noted that this took place after the flood. In the creation story when God makes the animals, men were assigned to be stewards over them which denotes a care-taking role (Genesis 1:28). Before human’s fall into sin their diet was a vegetarian one. In Genesis 1:29 God says that the herbs are for both men and animals to eat, so even animals did not eat one another. It was not until after the fall into sin that humans began to utilize animals (God gave Adam and Eve skins to use, and Abel used a sheep for offering) and not until God’s conversation with Noah that humans began to eat animals. Some theologians think that the flood would have wiped out all of the vegetation and so it became necessary to eat meat. Other theologians think that due to the depraved state of men and the sinfulness on the earth that God was making a concession and ‘meeting them where they were at’ by permitting them to eat meat. Animal sacrifices would have also been a concession. Although one could argue with animal sacrifices that it was a cultural practice and not necessarily something God permitted or even required. This is also depending on if these stories are taken literally or if they are considered as myth literature in which you look for the meaning behind the story.
As a result of the philosophical assertions that have shaped modern Christian thought we humans are considered the crown of creation which means that we are God’s most prized creation and the main object of His concern. Making distinctions between humans and animals has been important for maintaining this view. Some of these distinctions are: humans have souls and animals do not (another assertion from Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas), humans were made in the image of God and animals were not, and humans are more rational than animals (this includes having language).
Influential Animal Rights Philosophers of the Present
Andrew Linzey, an Anglican priest and theologian founded the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics. He proposes an animal theology which argues that God is concerned not only about humans, but about animals as well. As guardian rather than oppressors of animals we need to include animals in the moral community and take care of them (Linzey, 2009). He argues that humans, especially Christians, have an obligation to care about the lives of animals. In Genesis 1:31 God looks over all His creation and says that it was very good. For some reason, this scripture is often misquoted as if to say that God made humans and then said that the humans were very good. Humans are an important aspect of creation-but they’re just that: an aspect of creation. We seem to have inherited this narrative of creation that puts humans at the center piece. God gives humans dominion over the animals, but dominion does not mean to exploit-it means to steward and care for. God has instructed humans to protect animals. Instead of thinking about how animals can be of service to us the question is flipped over to: How can we be of service to animals? How can we make sure their lives go better for them instead of worse? In Genesis 1:26 when God gives humans dominion over animals, He first says “Let’s make man in Our image, according to our likeness”. Being image-bearers of God has been another point for humans to make about their superiority to animals, but this very assertion is in contradiction to what it means to bear God’s image. Bearing God’s image means to take on the characteristics of God which is one of love, sacrifice, and humility-not superiority and exploitation. Therefore, being made in God’s image is not something that should make us prideful and domineering-it should make us humble and full of servitude (Linzey, 2009) .
Bernard Rollins, a philosopher, professor of animal sciences, philosophy, and biomedical sciences proposes that animals have a telos (a term originated from Aristotle), meaning that they have a purpose which emerges from their nature. Animals were designed to live in a certain way and to allow an animal to live in a way that, tending to important elements of their nature, is to recognize their telos (Fraser, 1999). If a gerbil is in a cage where she cannot dig, we can argue that the gerbil is not able to fulfill her nature. She cannot act on the things that make her a gerbil. She has a purpose and goals that are linked to her nature and those parts of her nature cannot be fulfilled.
Peter Singer, a moral philosopher, argues that animals should be afforded equal consideration of interests. This does not mean that animals are treated equally but that all animals are given consideration for their interests (Singer, 2009). In the same way that it would not make sense for glasses to be given to all people because not everyone needs them, not all animals should be given the same thing but all animals should be given what pertains to their interests. The term interests refers to what is beneficial for someone. In the instance of animals I can propose that animals have an interest in living and an interest in not suffering. Awareness of those interests means understanding that certain actions towards animals may deny them of their interest. For example, a cow trying to exit the line up for slaughter, or a mouse trying to escape from a sticky trap implies an interest in living (although it can also imply an interest in not suffering but an interest in not suffering speaks to an interest in a quality of life).
Tom Regan, a philosopher, argues that rights should be afforded to all animals because they are ‘experiencing subjects of a life’ which involves being someone whose life can go good or bad. It also involves being able to feel pleasure and pain, intention and desire, and a direction for one’s future. It implies that animals have lives of their own and what happens to them matters to them (“How to do animal rights”, 2008).
Notes
Aquinas, T. (2006). Summa theoligiae. (II-II, Q.64, Art. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corse, T. (2010). Dryden's "Vegetarian" Philosopher: Pythagoras. Eighteenth-Century Life, 34(1), 1-28.
Fraser, D. (1999). Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 65, 171-189
Greenebaum, J. (2009). "I'm Not an Activist!": Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare in the Purebred Dog Rescue Movement. Society & Animals, 17(4), 289-304. doi:10.1163/106311109X12474622855066
Gruen, L. (2011). Ethics and animals: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
How to do animal rights. (2008). Retrieved Jan 22, 2015 from http://www.animalethics.org.uk/subject-of-a-life.html
Schaff, P. (1890). St. Augustin's City of God and Christian Doctrine. NY: The Christian Literature Publishing Co.
Linzey, A. (2009). Creatures of the same God. Virginia:Lantern Books
Rene Descartes. (2008). In Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved Jan 22, 1015 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes/
Rollin, B.E. (2006). Animal rights and human morality. (3rd ed.). NY: Prometheus Books.
Singer, P. (1993). Practical ethics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The moral status of animals. (2003). Retrieved Jan 22, 2015 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/