Last updated on June 6, 2020
[Note: This article is being posted in the midst of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and during the riots spurred by the barbaric killing of George Floyd. Readers may legitimately ask whether the world has bigger problems right now than animal ethics. My response is that this blog is devoted to promoting the dignity of all human beings and this article, planned well before the current crises, ultimately serves that purpose.]
Human Exceptionalism
I frequently ask my students this question: If you walked along the shore and came upon a stranger drowning but then looked around and saw that nearby there was also a dog drowning, all other factors being equal, which one would you save first? Most say that they would try to rescue the stranger over the dog, even though it is sad for the animal. But then when I change the scenario slightly and ask, “but what if it were your dog?” Then, the conversation usually shifts dramatically. Objectively, when it’s an unknown dog and an unknown person, the human being is privileged. But when the dog is your pet, an animal you know and have a relationship to, many of my students struggle and shyly admit they might save their dog first. I do this little thought experiment to try to explore our views about the relative value of human and animal life. In our world today, the extreme elements of the animal rights or animal liberation movements attack the traditional Christian view that human life is sacred and deserves protection in a way that cannot be said of animals. This traditional view is sometimes referred to as human exceptionalism. In our response to this challenge, Christians must avoid over-correction to the point of falling into the ditch on the other side of the road by ruthlessly exploiting and destroying the earth and its non-human inhabitants. The Christian faith confesses the inviolable dignity of every human life while also showing also showing regard for God’s creatures over which humans are called to be stewards.
At the beginning, it is important to define our terms. Just to be clear, the phrase “animal ethics” does not refer to the ethical behavior of animals; it refers to the way that humans should treat animals. Hopefully, that was obvious. Secondly, it is common in animal ethics literature to refer to humans on the one hand and non-human animals on the other. Darwinism conditions people to view human beings as animals themselves who are simply on a continuum of biological life that includes snails, fish, chimpanzees and Socrates. In a certain light, this way of speaking is unobjectionable because humans are indeed biological creatures with tissues and organs and systems very like representatives of the animal kingdom. But for the purposes of this essay, we will stick with the older way of speaking which notes that there are human beings and there are animals.
Conservative Christians, especially those of an Evangelical leaning, don’t tend to think much about animal ethics. Some may ask why we should care about animal ethics when 60 million people have died by abortion in the United States alone. Being outraged by the abortion holocaust does not have to preclude concern for animal welfare. It is not an either/or. Of course, abortion is a more grave problem than animal cruelty but it is possible to oppose abortion and have an opinion on other, admittedly subordinate, topics as well. Animal ethics is a prominent topic in ethics right now and there are biblical grounds for addressing the matter. Conservative evangelical Christians today have a tendency to focus on going to heaven and not so much on improving conditions for life on earth. It hasn’t always been so. Social reform has played a large part in the history of Evangelicalism, as it has throughout Christian history from the start. Since the rise of Christian fundamentalism however, not so much. Under this distortion of Christian truth, salvation does not really mean very much until you die.[1] One of the central themes of this blog is the importance of expressing a robust theology of humanity and how that guides our moral formation. Some of the facets of animal ethics aid us in defining human nature.
Princeton ethicist, Peter Singer, is one of the most influential living philosophers in the world. His 1975, Animal Liberation, is foundational for the modern animal rights movement. Singer likes to argue that people who call themselves “pro-life” almost never really mean it because they don’t object to killing animals. He knows that most pro-lifers don’t mean that all killing is wrong, just the killing of innocent human beings, but this stance is inconsistent and indefensible in his mind.[2]
No one opposes all killing. Every time you wash your hands, you are killing microbial life forms. We take antibiotics to do the same. When you walk along the sidewalk, you are likely crushing small insects. You destroy a cabbage by eating it. If you chop down a tree to build yourself shelter, you have taken the life from something magnificent. Clearly, we kill living things all the time. One cannot plausibly take a stand against all killing. There must be some nonarbitrary standard by which we know where to draw the line between beings we may use or kill and beings that should be protected.
Does human life have intrinsic value merely on the basis of being human life? Some propose that human beings acquire moral status, have rights and value and merit protection, on the basis of their various capacities or abilities, such as intelligence, creativity, and relationships. The belief that an individual has rights, such as the right to life and the right to not be harmed, simply because he belongs to the species Homo sapiens is labeled speciesist by some. Speciesism is taken to be a form of bigotry as odious as racism. It is the belief that one has a certain inherent value purely on the basis of one’s species membership. The traditional Christian answer is that yes, human life is sacred purely on the basis that it is human life, call this what you will.
Defending the sanctity of human life does not mean that one has no concern for animals. In Matthew 10, Jesus says: “Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. “But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. “So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows (v.29-31).” This passage shows that the Father is mindful of every sparrow, but, at the same time, that human life is more precious than animal life. There is a hierarchy in creation. As with so many things, the Christian way avoids polar extremes. Christianity does not blur the distinction between humans and animals and confesses that the value of human life exceeds that of animals. But Christianity does not accept cruelty to sentient beasts or the wanton destruction of the earth.
Personhood
Many bioethicists, especially those from a secularist perspective, make a distinction between a human being and a person. Probably for most of us, there is no difference. Bioethicists, however, regularly think of them as related but distinct categories. So, for someone like Peter Singer, one can be a human being, but not be a person. And likewise, one could be a person without being a human being. A human embryo is a living human being. No one in the scientific world disputes that. It is alive. It belongs to the species Homo sapiens. It is a human life and left in its natural state, it will mature through all the stages of human life. This is not a philosophical or religious opinion. The debate is whether such a human being is also a person.
Singer’s definition of personhood is that the being must be able to exercise reason to a certain degree and be self-aware.[3] He is vague as to how much mental ability is necessary to cross the line from non-person to person. He has a sliding scale. The more rational, the greater status. Presumably Princeton ethics professors are safe. A newborn is out, for him. It can’t even talk. But a three-year-old, he says, is a gray case.[4] His standards would exclude human embryos, fetuses, newborns, and those with profound brain injuries or developmental disorders. Furthermore, since a modicum of rationality and self-awareness is demonstrably possessed by apes, elephants, and dolphins, they should be considered on the sliding scale of moral status. By this reasoning, an unborn baby is not a person, but an Orangutan could be.
The concept of “person” has long history in philosophy and theology, which is far beyond the scope of this essay. For our present conversation, Roman Catholic ethicists often look to sixth century philosopher and Christian martyr, Boethius, who defined a person as an individual substance of a rational nature.[5] That is to say, humans are naturally the sort of beings who can, barring any external hindrance such as disease or injury, exercise abstract thought, moral deliberation, and will.
The objection is often made that not all human beings can be called rational. Embryos, for instance, cannot think and deliberate. People who are profoundly mentally disabled have less reasoning ability than Albert Einstein. The counter argument to these objections is that individual humans may have undeveloped or impaired intellectual abilities, but rationality is still their nature. If we could somehow cure the anencephalic baby, he would not become a different kind of thing than he was before. He would have restored mental function, to be sure, but would continue to be the personal being he was all along.
A baby cannot do mathematical equations but that is only a matter of maturity and education, not because of the kind of thing he is. Take a puppy, for instance. It will never be able to do algebra, no matter how old it gets or how much you train it. In order to gain this capacity, the puppy would need to become something completely different. A human with intellectual disabilities may also be unable to solve for x, but that, again, is not a result of the kind of thing he is. He does not need to undergo an essential change to solve for x. A cure for his disability will unlock his latent but inherent ability, without him becoming something other than human. Patrick Lee and Robert George argue: “The capacity for conceptual thought is a capacity that human beings have in virtue of the kind of entity they are. That is, from the time they come to be they are developing themselves toward the mature stage at which they will (unless prevented from doing so by disability or circumstances) perform such acts.”[6] The danger of attaching moral status to performances that can be evaluated in degrees, such as the speed for solving a Rubik’s Cube, then we are faced with the problem of giving greater value to the lives of rocket scientists than to children with Down syndrome.
In traditional Christian thought, there are no sub-personal human beings. All human beings are persons and therefore possess basic fundamental rights. If all human beings are persons, then all have an equal fundamental dignity, irrespective of present differences in ability, maturation, or social standing. The basis for dignity is being a certain sort of thing, not the fluctuating ability to express one’s nature. The difference between a man or woman and an animal therefore is a difference in kind.
The Inner Life of Beasts
Philosopher Reneé Descartes believed that animals were mere automata, like clockwork figures that move around mimicking humans in some ways but without possessing anything like a mind. This seems ludicrous to anyone who has ever spent times with animals, especially those of the higher orders. Clearly many animals feel pleasure and pain, have preferences, can learn and communicate, experience fear, show courage and loyalty and even affection. They like to play. They have dreams when they sleep. All of these observations lead us to conclude that some animals have some degree of mental life.
Research into animal intelligence has revealed remarkable things about our fellow earthlings. Elephants grieve when one of their companions dies. Great apes in captivity can learn hundreds of words in sign language. Chimpanzees can recognize themselves in a mirror which means they possess a sense of self. That chimp is me, as opposed to another chimp or a meaningless, if amusing, image. Traditional Catholic thought teaches that humans possess a rational nature that is different in kind from animal intelligence but that does not mean they have no mental life whatsoever.
What are the spiritual implications of the claim that some animals have a mind? Every modern pet owner has wondered whether Spot or Fluffy will go to heaven when they die. Even if a biblical case can be made that animals are endowed with soul, in some sense,[7] it is unknown whether they experience any kind of continued existence after death. The Bible is silent on whether animals experience resurrection in the new creation. Admittedly, the Bible doesn’t claim that they don’t either. The argument from silence is a weak argument, but it means that anything we might say for or against their ongoing life is only speculation. It is difficult to conceive of the new creation being devoid of animals. Indeed, Scripture clearly depicts their presence in the hereafter. But whether the beasts in our eternal paradise will include my beloved pets from this life is only guesswork. Many people point out that Martin Luther may have thought that dogs go to heaven. He is oft-quoted as saying: “Be thou comforted, little dog, Thou too in Resurrection shall have a little golden tail.”[8] Assuming the quote is legit, Luther is not here making an eschatological confession. He is offering a pious opinion, probably informally at his table. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong; it just means we can’t be dogmatic about it.
Animals in the Bible
Christian Scripture is not, and is not meant to be, a comprehensive explanation of everything. It is God’s self-revelation through prophets and apostles to offer Christ and make us wise for salvation (2 Timothy 3:15). It is often possible, nonetheless, to make reasonable connections to contemporary issues from God’s Word.
The Bible actually cares quite a bit about the well-being of animals. Throughout the Old Testament, especially, there are numerous references to animals. In the first chapters of Genesis, God created all the beasts of the land, sea, and air and pronounced them good. Later, God ordered Israel to provide for the needs of their beasts of burden, including the need for rest (Ex. 23:4-5, 10-12). When God sent Jonah to preach repentance to Nineveh, He is even notices of the plight of their animals. “Should I not have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals (Jonah 4:11)?” In Isaiah, God promises that there will be a new heaven and a new earth which is also referenced in the book of Revelation. In the New Testament, St. Paul in Romans 8 says that “the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God (v.21).” Though animals are not specifically mentioned in some of these new creation passages, it is reasonable to think that they too will share, in some sense, in the glorious renewal of all things.
In 2 Samuel, there is the account that the prophet Nathan rebuking King David with a parable, that incidentally David does not know is a parable until the end. Nathan describes a man who owned a sole ewe lamb that he raised and loved “like a daughter.” One night, the man’s rich neighbor stole the lamb, slaughtered it, and served it for his dinner guests. David did not mock the first man for sentimental attachment to a mere beast. He was livid at the injustice and declared that the rich man deserved to die, not just for theft, as if this were a mere property crime, but for his lack of pity. The climax comes when the prophet applied his parable to David himself for taking another man’s wife. Animal welfare is not the point of the story, nor is Nathan drawing a one-for-one comparison between a sheep and a woman. The issue was David’s selfishness, lust, and hardness of heart, but the parable would have had no emotional impact if he thought being emotionally bonded to an animal to be pathetic or outlandish.
Though the Scriptures contain no detailed guide for using animals in medical research and though they accept using animals for food and clothing, they do indicate that God is mindful of all living things. Likewise, godliness means being thoughtful about the animals we own and use. As it is written: “A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal….” (Proverbs 12:10). Thus, the Bible has a positive view of animal life which does not go so far as to prohibit using and killing animals for food, clothing, or other purposes.
Animal Ethics
Outside the Bible, the history of Christian thought is curiously quiet about animal ethics. There are a few remarks in the early church and stories of saintly people in the Middle Ages who have a special way with beasts such as Francis of Assisi. For the most part, however, serious discussion of moral standards for how animals should be treated does not take place really until the 1800s.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, concern for animal welfare resulted in numerous societies for the protection of animals such as the Humane Society and the ASPCA. The great social reformer, William Wilberforce, most especially known for leading the charge to abolish the African slave trade in Great Britain decades before America and without a civil war, also championed other religious and moral causes including the prevention of cruelty to animals. Many writers of the time opposed vivisection in laboratories, the scientific pursuit to understand physiology by dissecting living creatures and some were expressly motivated by their Christian faith.
Modern Christian leaders have offered theological and ethical considerations about animals. Pope John Paul the Great and Pope Benedict both made statements about animal ethics and the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
“[Humanity’s] dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation. Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. . . . It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.”[9]
It is worth highlight the Catechism’s observation that cruelty to animals is degrading to the person doing it.
C.S. Lewis remains one of the most popular Christian authors in the English language, even a half century after his death. Lewis wrote a book called The Problem of Pain. Though not a professional theologian or member of the clergy, Lewis was an apologist, and he recognized that theodicy is one of the biggest intellectual obstacles for unbelievers to embrace Christianity. If God is all-powerful and truly good, then why is there so much suffering in the world? This is the question Lewis tackles. Though most of the book is about human suffering, he does devote one chapter to animal pain in which he states that “the Christian explanation of human pain cannot be extended to animal pain. So far as we know beasts are incapable of either sin or virtue: therefore, they can neither deserve pain nor be improved by it.”[10]
The fact that some living things are sentient, that is, capable of pleasure and pain, should play a part in how we choose to treat them. For example, factory farming[11] has many disturbing practices that should be reconsidered. It doesn’t make me a neo-pagan to want those animals destined for my dinner table to be treated humanely until that time. There are Christians who become vegetarian or vegan, of course. This step may have many things to commend it, but it is not morally obligatory. Though Scripture is technically silent on the matter, it is hard to make the case that Jesus, who was served roasted lamb at every Passover meal, did not eat meat. Genesis actually provides explicit permission to eat the flesh of animals (Gen. 9:3). But just because a person enjoys a steak now and then doesn’t mean he thinks it’s OK to torture the cow.
Attitudes toward animals are also reliant upon culture. Is a dog, for instance, suitable for food or man’s best friend? People that grow up on a farm often have different values about animals than city-dwellers or suburbanites. When my son was five-years-old, we had a Lutheran bishop from South Sudan staying with us and Jacob asked him, “Which animal is your favorite.” The bishop’s reply: “Whichever one I am eating.” We laughed. He wasn’t being flippant. He just had a different cultural notion about the purpose of animals than an American child. Today’s American society tends to go overboard with our pets. Cats and dogs are not our children.
Even so, simply enjoying animals as gifts from the Creator is nothing to be ashamed of. “I will never laugh at anyone for grieving over a loved beast,” C.S. Lewis wrote in a 1956 letter to comfort a woman who’d had to euthanize her cat.[12] It is not a sin to become fond of a pet and to mourn its death. People can become attached to their animals while also recognizing that the death of a human being is an immeasurably greater loss. Our throwaway culture does treat human life as cheap and expendable while, at times, doting on animals. This is a serious problem. And yet it is a false dichotomy to say human exceptionalism must exclude all concern for animal welfare.
It comes back to stewardship, being wise managers of God’s resources. In Martin Luther’s Small Catechism, the part on Confession and under the question about which sins a person should confess, Luther says to consider your place in life according to the Ten Commandments. He asks several questions to get us thinking including this: “Have you stolen, been negligent, wasted anything, or done any harm (emphasis added)?”[13] Human beings are appointed by God as caretakers of his good creation. This includes making sure that we don’t waste the resources we have been given. It is idolatrous to worship the earth but that does not mean that people are justified in destroying the creation.
People think that if you care about animal welfare you must love beasts more than people; you must be a radical Gaia worshiper, a tree-hugger, or at least a sentimental oddball. Let’s reject these assumptions. There is another possibility. Let us praise God for all of the marvels of His creative hand. Let us receive animals as gifts from our Father. And let us use and enjoy animals humanely without degrading human life in the process.
This ended up being a longer post than I originally intended, but I guess I had a lot to say. If you are interested in reading about extremes in the animal rights movement, I recommend A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy by Wesley J. Smith.
[1] In contrast, utopianism is equally distorted and just as dangerous.
[2] Peter Singer, Practical Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 71.
[3] Singer, Practical Ethics, 75.
[4] Mark Oppenheimer, “The Utility of Peter Singer: Who Lives? Who Dies?,” Christian Century, July 3-10, 2002, 27.
[5] Chales Camosy, Peter Singer and Christian Ethics: Beyond Polarization (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012), 121.
[6] Patrick Lee and Robert George, “The Nature and Basis of Human Dignity,” Ratio Juris, Vol. 21, No. 2 (June 2008): 185.
[7] The Bible uses several words for a living thing’s interior life and one of the definitions of soul is “animating life force,” which animals do possess. To say this is not the same as claiming that animals will experience life after death. This is a topic that goes beyond the purposes of this essay but one to which there can be no firm resolution.
[8] Though I’ve seen this quote many times, I have not yet had the opportunity to verify a source.
[9] Catechism of the Catholic Church, paras. 2415, 2416, and 2418.
[10] C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (London: Collins, 2012), 83.
[11] This is not the place to go into detail about factory farming. A simple Google search will do. But be warned; it isn’t pretty.
[12] Michael J. Gilmour, “C.S. Lewis and Animal Experimentation.” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Vol. 67, Number 4, December 2015, 258.
[13] Martin Luther, Luther’s Small Catechism with Explanation (St. Louis: Concordia, 2018), 25.