Christianity, Humans and Animals

[ToHoldNothing]

Not even getting so much into the evolution/creation/design debate, I wonder how the admittance or denial of theologians and Christians in general of humans as animals or not animals relates to our general treatment of humans and animals.

For instance, we have examples of Christians and non Christians alike treating animals badly because of Descartes' notion that animals are automatons/machines and thus vivisection was justified and acceptable. But more commonly we have Christians and non Christians alike treating animals very nicely, in the sense of humaneness. Of course there are the other extreme of people that advocate more excessive animal liberation of sorts, but I can't imagine there are Christians that fit this bill.

With relation of humans to animals, there are theists and Christians that can be said to admit that we are indeed animals and rightly so if you think of a similar root word of sorts, anima in Latin, that translates to soul. So in all general Christian theology, we're the only animals, whereas non human animals would be better referred to as beasts or wild animals perhaps, in that they have a spirit of life, but no soul of sorts. But of course this is debated as well, particularly with domestic animals that owners believe manifest individual personalities, so it's quite possible they have a soul and thus will be in heaven. The notion of separate heavens for animals/beasts versus human animals seems questionable in relation to criticism by Christians of segregation, right?

So in relation to humans being referred to as animals, the only problem is in seeing them as mere animals, imho. This is where we also get into racism and ethnic discrimination, not unlike the Nazi ideology, regarding Jews and others as from what I recall, subhuman, so that killing them is not the same as murder at all, it's like killing a rabid beast or such.

But of course, Christians will refer me to atheist systems that believe in Social Darwinism because they regard humans as essentially the same as animals and thus they must behave in conformity with that principle of natural selection. Except when you start doing what humans call Social Darwinism, it doesn't conform with natural selection, because you are planning it explicitly, so it's actuall directed selection honestly. Eugenics is the same, it in no way conforms with the basic idea of natural selection as it appears in basic evolutionary theory, because there isn't necessarily in any way a mind behind the effects of certain mutations and genetic drift enabling a species to survive and pass on that inheritance in any sense. It's a matter of context.

But are there other thoughts to bring up here with regards to Christians both thinking humans aren't animals at all and thinking humans are rational animals, in the vein of Aristotle?

 

[Chesterton]

This may not be completely relevant, but I was reminded of this from Chesterton:

"Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals. On the evolutionary basis you may be inhumane, or you may be absurdly humane; but you cannot be human. That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being as cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.

"If you want to treat a tiger reasonably, you must go back to the garden of Eden. For the obstinate reminder continued to recur: only the supernatural has taken a sane view of Nature. The essence of all pantheism, evolutionism, and modern cosmic religion is really in this proposition: that Nature is our mother. Unfortunately, if you regard Nature as a mother, you discover that she is a step-mother. The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister. We can be proud of her beauty, since we have the same father; but she has no authority over us; we have to admire, but not to imitate." Orthodoxy

 

[Key]

Humans are Animals in the sense we are organic carbon based cellular constructs.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Then humans are little different than plants. There's always the distinction between vegetative and animal organisms, so you'd have to be a little more specific than that, which only proves my point a bit.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

This may not be completely relevant, but I was reminded of this from Chesterton:

"Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals. On the evolutionary basis you may be inhumane, or you may be absurdly humane; but you cannot be human. That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being as cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.

"If you want to treat a tiger reasonably, you must go back to the garden of Eden. For the obstinate reminder continued to recur: only the supernatural has taken a sane view of Nature. The essence of all pantheism, evolutionism, and modern cosmic religion is really in this proposition: that Nature is our mother. Unfortunately, if you regard Nature as a mother, you discover that she is a step-mother. The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister. We can be proud of her beauty, since we have the same father; but she has no authority over us; we have to admire, but not to imitate." Orthodoxy

First inquiry, are you sure you're not quoting someone else instead of referring to yourself in the 3rd person?

I don't think evolutionary biologists would make the conflation of biology with morality. At best there is the consideration of psychological behaviorism or general considerations of habituation of ethical habits that makes one beleive that indirectly evolution contributes to our recognition of what theologians have termed natural law, albeit in a supernatural context.

I never personify nature as far as I can recall and even if I do, it is intended in a figurative context; not as if I'm actually recognizing some personality or genuine person to person relationship with nature. Recognizing the interrelatedness of things doesn't mean you have to be a cruel person; in fact, I would imagine more commonly if not very commonly, it would have the reverse effect. The Golden Rule runs deep and the people that eschew it are either genuine sociopaths or justify it based on more economic or egotistical means.

 

[Chesterton]

First inquiry, are you sure you're not quoting someone else instead of referring to yourself in the 3rd person?

I wish I were referring to myself. You know, you sign onto an internet forum to ask one question and you have to pick a name, then you stick around for a few years so you're stuck with it.

I don't think evolutionary biologists would make the conflation of biology with morality.

No, but evolutionary biologists who are atheist/materialist/naturalist pretty much have to. And they do.

I never personify nature as far as I can recall and even if I do, it is intended in a figurative context; not as if I'm actually recognizing some personality or genuine person to person relationship with nature.

But the figurative context is almost as important I think, if you use it because you see some meaning to it.

Recognizing the interrelatedness of things doesn't mean you have to be a cruel person; in fact, I would imagine more commonly if not very commonly, it would have the reverse effect. The Golden Rule runs deep and the people that eschew it are either genuine sociopaths or justify it based on more economic or egotistical means.

I think the reverse effect would be the insane [irrational] sentimentality Chesterton mentioned.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

No, but evolutionary biologists who are atheist/materialist/naturalist pretty much have to. And they do.

Examples of such people advocating that doesn't necessarily make it so. Not to mention this seems to make the error of conflating one's atheism with one's ethical considerations, which are technically not so intertwined as many make them.

But the figurative context is almost as important I think, if you use it because you see some meaning to it.

Seeing a figurative meaning is not the same as seeing a literal meaning. A consideration of the Bible as literature instead of as sacred text doesn't reduce the importance you should have in investigating it.

I think the reverse effect would be the insane [irrational] sentimentality Chesterton mentioned.

Irrational sentimentality doesn't imply that it is part of your beliefs as opposed to part of your potentially warped neurology and psychology.

 

[Chesterton]

Examples of such people advocating that doesn't necessarily make it so.

I'm not saying it is so; I don't believe it is. I'm saying some people do believe it is so.

Not to mention this seems to make the error of conflating one's atheism with one's ethical considerations, which are technically not so intertwined as many make them.

What else besides beliefs are there from which to derive ethics? Beliefs are all we have. You can't use a microscope or telescope to investigate how you should live.

Seeing a figurative meaning is not the same as seeing a literal meaning. A consideration of the Bible as literature instead of as sacred text doesn't reduce the importance you should have in investigating it.

Yes; "figurative" and "literal" mean two different things; but neither means more or less "real".

Irrational sentimentality doesn't imply that it is part of your beliefs as opposed to part of your potentially warped neurology and psychology.

Beliefs can stem from those same warped things.

 

[AlexBP]

But are there other thoughts to bring up here with regards to Christians both thinking humans aren't animals at all and thinking humans are rational animals, in the vein of Aristotle?

As I see it, our society has produced an animal caste system of a sort. A few animals, such as monkeys and apes, all zoo animals, and most pets live extremely fortunate lives with all kinds of decadent luxuries. For example, the inhabitants of the Chimp Haven sanctuary in Louisiana have a life that most human beings could only dream about.

At the other end of the spectrum there are the animals raised in the industrial farm system, who suffer from cramped conditions most of their lives and worse. The means for taking the horns off cattle or beaks off chickens are extremely painful. And while we have laws on the books that require certain standards for animal treatment in food-processing plants, those standards are routinely ignored. You can see all the very gory details in Food, Inc.:

YouTube - Food, Inc

So it seems to me that before we split animal treatment into these two ridiculous ends of the spectrum, we had a pretty good common sense approach to animals. We acknowledge that they are lesser than us but more than nothing. In other words, we can see that the higher animals like cows, pigs, cats, dogs, horses, chimps, and so forth are capable of exhibiting a version of some parts of our mental life. They can experience pain, joy, bonding, play, and other emotions that we recognize, though never to the same degree that we humans experience those emotions. That makes them worthy of a certain level of care. They should not be subjected to unnecessary pain or bad conditions, and should get appropriate food and conditions as long as it doesn't involve taking away from human beings. Lesser animals like earthworms and ants that don't share any similarities with our mental life can be squelched without guilt. That's how we generally treated animals for thousands of years, though there were scattered examples of cruel treatment such as dogfighting and bear-baiting. It was when certain philosophers started blurring the lines between the human, animal, and mineral levels of creation that things got out of whack.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I'm not saying it is so; I don't believe it is. I'm saying some people do believe it is so.

Christians following Descartes' line of reasoning, among others, vivsected animals because not only didn't they have souls, they were little better than machines, so they couldn't even feel pain. The abuse of something doesn't mean there isn't a proper use of it. Atheists being moral is no more impossible than Christians being immoral

What else besides beliefs are there from which to derive ethics? Beliefs are all we have. You can't use a microscope or telescope to investigate how you should live.

There's differences between your metaphysical beliefs and your ethical beliefs. You don't necessarily derive why you should treat someone better by what they are or aren't. Context sensitive ethics doesn't equal hard relativism.

Yes; "figurative" and "literal" mean two different things; but neither means more or less "real".

Again, we're talking context sensitive. If you apply a figurative meaning to something that's clearly literal, then you have a problem, and vice versa. If I see nature as figurative or metaphorical in appropriating a gender to it, it doesn't have to mean I take it as real in the sense of viewing nature as something objectively extant, particularly its laws like gravity and electromagnetism, among many others.

Beliefs can stem from those same warped things.

You're confusing beliefs you can deliberate with beliefs that are compelled by warped neurology, which can only be altered with sufficient medication or other treatment of some sort. Beliefs derived from less than sane states of mind are not as justified or even necessarily as worthy of regard as a sane person's except as they impinge upon other people's rights.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

As I see it, our society has produced an animal caste system of a sort. A few animals, such as monkeys and apes, all zoo animals, and most pets live extremely fortunate lives with all kinds of decadent luxuries. For example, the inhabitants of the Chimp Haven sanctuary in Louisiana have a life that most human beings could only dream about.

A single example doesn't mean that wild primates don't live wild lives. I admit, you are right potentially in that we lean towards giving primates potentially better treatment or advocate more as such. Treating zoo animals humanely is not always easy, so the example doesn't exactly hold. And treating pets humanely is a necessary thing because of the give and take relationship. We domesticated them, so we necessarily have a responsibility to not abuse them.

At the other end of the spectrum there are the animals raised in the industrial farm system, who suffer from cramped conditions most of their lives and worse. The means for taking the horns off cattle or beaks off chickens are extremely painful. And while we have laws on the books that require certain standards for animal treatment in food-processing plants, those standards are routinely ignored. You can see all the very gory details in Food, Inc.:

Not all animals are treated as such, but indeed, there is a problem here, not unlike with Descartes' view, among others, that animals don't feel pain. Somehow it still persists today in one sense or another, which would explain this. But there is a justification for the practice we have of slaughtering animals for food and that's in that if they were released back into the wild, they'd either starve to death or imbalance a food chain that we affected in some sense by domesticating livestock. The chicken is a really good example. If we didn't domesticate them and feed them in a farm and then kill them for food, we'd have imbalances in predatory chains, which is why foxes and wolves killing chickens is regarded as bad, both for the farmer and for the predators involved. But this is a tricky plank to walk, so the difficulty remains in that we treat animals more humanely the closer they are in relation to us: e.g. primates and pets. But the more distant they are, we seem to tend towards mistreating them: e.g. zoos and farms.

So it seems to me that before we split animal treatment into these two ridiculous ends of the spectrum, we had a pretty good common sense approach to animals. We acknowledge that they are lesser than us but more than nothing. In other words, we can see that the higher animals like cows, pigs, cats, dogs, horses, chimps, and so forth are capable of exhibiting a version of some parts of our mental life. They can experience pain, joy, bonding, play, and other emotions that we recognize, though never to the same degree that we humans experience those emotions. That makes them worthy of a certain level of care. They should not be subjected to unnecessary pain or bad conditions, and should get appropriate food and conditions as long as it doesn't involve taking away from human beings.

The distinction therefore is sentience especially, but also the capacity to demonstrate at least lesser forms of personality and mood. The difficulty with your polarization is that humans are also subject to the impulses that animals have. The only thing distinguishing us is our capacity to resist. But we cannot deny that we share potentially more with animals than simply what we observe that they share with us: e.g. capacity for pain, manifesting emotion and other human-like behaviors.

Lesser animals like earthworms and ants that don't share any similarities with our mental life can be squelched without guilt. That's how we generally treated animals for thousands of years, though there were scattered examples of cruel treatment such as dogfighting and bear-baiting. It was when certain philosophers started blurring the lines between the human, animal, and mineral levels of creation that things got out of whack.

I think you mean the lines between human and animal. Mineral and vegetable are less defended in terms of our proper treatment of them as ends in themselves. Minerals don't feel pain in any significant sense or at all, as far as I'm aware; e.g. a rock or plastic. But vegetables could be said to feel pain in a more limited sense, but not to the extent that we should treat them like animals. The distinction here is conservation behavior. we should seek to preserve plants, in that they are interrelated with us. And likewise with minerals, we should not waste them, though this is more relevant with fossil fuels and such, but any material on earth has cycles or limits to it, I imagine.

There is a problem with senselessly killing insects and such, even if they don't share the capacity , and that is the effect of our killing them on other animals that eat them for sustenance. If we kill too many of them, we risk starving the animals that were dependent on them. But in the other extreme, if we don't kill them at all, we risk danger to ourselves and other animals, as well as the plants we and the animals depend on as crops.

 

[Chesterton]

Christians following Descartes' line of reasoning, among others, vivsected animals because not only didn't they have souls, they were little better than machines, so they couldn't even feel pain. The abuse of something doesn't mean there isn't a proper use of it. Atheists being moral is no more impossible than Christians being immoral

I didn't say no atheist could be moral. I'm saying no atheist can be moral and be logically consistent with their beliefs. No atheist can say we "should" be a certain way, if there's no such thing as "should". And you can't get "should" from mere nature.

There's differences between your metaphysical beliefs and your ethical beliefs. You don't necessarily derive why you should treat someone better by what they are or aren't. Context sensitive ethics doesn't equal hard relativism.

If context matters to your ethics (which it does), it matters whether the context is valid.

Again, we're talking context sensitive. If you apply a figurative meaning to something that's clearly literal, then you have a problem, and vice versa. If I see nature as figurative or metaphorical in appropriating a gender to it, it doesn't have to mean I take it as real in the sense of viewing nature as something objectively extant, particularly its laws like gravity and electromagnetism, among many others.

If you apply a figurative meaning you apply a figurative meaning. If you apply a literal meaning you apply a literal meaning. That's all I said. I don't know what you mean by seeing nature as figurative or literal. As a Christian I believe nature is real, so all aspects of nature are literal, but some are also figurative. Because I believe there is a willful, choosing Creator, I don't have to choose "either/or" for the whole ball of wax.

You're confusing beliefs you can deliberate with beliefs that are compelled by warped neurology, which can only be altered with sufficient medication or other treatment of some sort. Beliefs derived from less than sane states of mind are not as justified or even necessarily as worthy of regard as a sane person's except as they impinge upon other people's rights.

I'm not confusing anything. Beliefs stem from whatever beliefs stem from, whether normal or abnormal.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I didn't say no atheist could be moral. I'm saying no atheist can be moral and be logically consistent with their beliefs. No atheist can say we "should" be a certain way, if there's no such thing as "should". And you can't get "should" from mere nature

I don't think atheists argue ethics from mere nature. Philosophical arguments come from both a priori and a posteriori observations and principles we develop. Ethics is habitual and gradual in its development. We don't automatically know everything, otherwise it would be terribly boring and uninteresting, theistic or atheistic context. Don't you think so?

If context matters to your ethics (which it does), it matters whether the context is valid.

How can you therefore discredit or critique the validity of a context? Context is simply something that exists within our assessment of an ethical decision. If I choose to kill someone in self defense if I have no choice, that context seems justified and valid. My question seems to be, why apply the term validity to context as opposed to an ethical argument?

If you apply a figurative meaning you apply a figurative meaning. If you apply a literal meaning you apply a literal meaning. That's all I said. I don't know what you mean by seeing nature as figurative or literal. As a Christian I believe nature is real, so all aspects of nature are literal, but some are also figurative. Because I believe there is a willful, choosing Creator, I don't have to choose "either/or" for the whole ball of wax.

I never said there was either/or. I can agree there are layered understandings to a single thing. It's not always black and white. I should be the first to admit this, right? Since I'm an "atheist" and all.

I'm not confusing anything. Beliefs stem from whatever beliefs stem from, whether normal or abnormal.

The question remains then whether the beliefs are willed or compelled. The difference is pretty important.

 

[Chesterton]

I don't think atheists argue ethics from mere nature. Philosophical arguments come from both a priori and a posteriori observations and principles we develop. Ethics is habitual and gradual in its development. We don't automatically know everything, otherwise it would be terribly boring and uninteresting, theistic or atheistic context. Don't you think so?

For an atheist (naturalist) there is nothing but nature.

How can you therefore discredit or critique the validity of a context? Context is simply something that exists within our assessment of an ethical decision. If I choose to kill someone in self defense if I have no choice, that context seems justified and valid. My question seems to be, why apply the term validity to context as opposed to an ethical argument?

I don't know what you mean by "context" here. I thought you meant something like an external basis. I don't think context can exist within our assessment of ethics; that would lead to circular reasoning.

I never said there was either/or. I can agree there are layered understandings to a single thing. It's not always black and white. I should be the first to admit this, right? Since I'm an "atheist" and all.

You have a Buddhist icon. I have no idea what you believe. (A friend of a friend of mine, who was a pretty staunch atheist, once told us he'd decided to become Buddhist because he thought it would make him a better poker player.)

The question remains then whether the beliefs are willed or compelled. The difference is pretty important.

Yes, very important. Some people think we have no will at all.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

For an atheist (naturalist) there is nothing but nature.

I fail to see how every atheist is necessarily anything but an atheist in that particualr sense. You can't extend atheism by necessity to naturalism unless you argue that all denials of "God" equal affirmation of the exact kind of naturalism you mean.

I don't know what you mean by "context" here. I thought you meant something like an external basis. I don't think context can exist within our assessment of ethics; that would lead to circular reasoning.

If one doesn't assess context within their ethical considerations, we tend towards dangerous authoritarianism. In short, we just follow something because it has power over us instead of doing it because we want to. And even if we did it merely because we want to, there's a tendency towards behavioristic habituation that makes people behave in particular ethical ways without considering what might occur if you behaved otherwise. That's my consideration of context. It's not always so simple, I accept that, but for people not to take a step back and think about ethics in a larger scope seems unfair to how ethics applies to everyone.

You have a Buddhist icon. I have no idea what you believe. (A friend of a friend of mine, who was a pretty staunch atheist, once told us he'd decided to become Buddhist because he thought it would make him a better poker player.)

One person converting to Buddhism for superfluous reasons hardly reflects why many others might make a sincere conversion. You seem to want to remain in some kind of self ordained ignorance for some kind of concern that you might find things in Buddhism that are compellingly similar to Christianity, even if they are derived from different lines of inference. What would learning about Buddhism in some detail hurt you?

Yes, very important. Some people think we have no will at all.

Hard line determinists to my understanding are quite rare, but I doubt either of us has significant information about statistics of it.

 

[Harry3142]

ToHoldNothing-

I have had pets for most of my life (both dogs and cats) and definitely can say that each one had his/her own special personality. The 2 cats I have now are convincing evidence that pets don't just want a place to live and food to eat. They seek me out in order to get affection.

We are the animal whom God has appointed as stewards over all other species of animal. Rather than our limiting our goals exclusively to achieving that which benefits us as humans, we establish goals which will contribute to the welfare of other species.

Sometimes the means we use seem paradoxical. The keeping of pets is straightforward. But how does hunting and fishing help a specie of animal? How does raising livestock for consumption benefit that same specie of livestock? For the answers to these questions we rely on those who have made a profession out of the study and care of the various species. It's the results of their work rather than the emotionalism of others that must dictate our actions in this regard.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I have had pets for most of my life (both dogs and cats) and definitely can say that each one had his/her own special personality. The 2 cats I have now are convincing evidence that pets don't just want a place to live and food to eat. They seek me out in order to get affection.

I don't think as a non Christian I disbelieve this, or even as an atheist. This part is not necessarily my difficulty so much as the relation you elaborate on here in relation to humans and animals.

We are the animal whom God has appointed as stewards over all other species of animal. Rather than our limiting our goals exclusively to achieving that which benefits us as humans, we establish goals which will contribute to the welfare of other species.

Contributing to the welfare of other species is not always so easy, since we don't necessarily hold the capacity to see all the causal relations, chains and effects that might come forth from our supposed help. That's why we have invasive species in the U.S. because we didn't understand how interrelated things were and how the transported species would interact with a new habitat.

Even if you admit we are an animal, the fact that you think we have some sort of relation to animals as a divine mandate or duty seems excessive. It just seems practical and utilitarian first off to behave in humane ways to animals and seek, however imperfectly, to both interfere when necessary and realize when not to interfere. Not to mention reflecting on virtue ethics in relation to the virtue of compassion. Compassion as a moderation between excessive affection and defective lack of affect requires in practice that we consider and be mindful of every sentient being and even those that are living but not necessarily sentient, if only because of the principle of conditioned genesis (loose translation).

Sometimes the means we use seem paradoxical. The keeping of pets is straightforward. But how does hunting and fishing help a specie of animal? How does raising livestock for consumption benefit that same specie of livestock? For the answers to these questions we rely on those who have made a profession out of the study and care of the various species. It's the results of their work rather than the emotionalism of others that must dictate our actions in this regard.

Not every professional reflects on virtue in relation to their discipline. Some professionals regard animals still as essentially not feeling pain, so the inhumane treatment of livestock still persists in one form or another. And hunting for sport can become just as much prone to abuse, along with fishing or the like. People can think they are entitled to more than they actually need or simply think that nature will provide all they think they need, which can be argued to be directly caused by people believing that God has made them dominant over every species and other scattered notions in the Bible that God will provide and the like.

It's not that Christians can't regard humans as animals, but it's the danger of regarding us as absolutely superior animals that I find problematic. To see us as basically equal to our pets is not me advocating we see ourselves as absolutely equal, but that our consideration should be mindful of both without thinking ourselves imperfect or without flaws.

 

[Chesterton]

Never mind.

 

[Harry3142]

As a Christian I accept that mankind is indeed superior to the animals. And as such we have responsibilities as well as authority over them (Genesis 9:1-3). For someone else who is not a practising Jew or Christian to say that they have a different philosophy is their right; I do not oppose that. But if they go so far as to say that we who are practising Jews or Christians must follow their dictates rather than our own teachings, then they have 'crossed the line' into philosophical imposition.

A few years ago there was a news program of the type of format as Meet the Press. On that program there were three men; each of them was a spokesperson for a particular group, including one who was a spokesperson for one of the more wellknown animal-rights groups. This particular segment dealt with the use of animals in medical research.

They got onto the subject of diabetes. They discussed how they had found out what caused it. They also discussed how they had discovered the proper method of insulin treatment to keep it under control. They stated that children's lives had been saved as a result. But when the moderator asked the animal-rights spokesperson whether his group could approve of this specific instance, his answer conveyed the chilling philosophy of his group:

"A child's life is of no more value than a dog's life."

As a Christian I cannot accept this. A group which states categorically that a child has no more of a right to live than a dog does is in direct opposition to anyone who has common sense, let alone religious beliefs. No Christian, Jew, or Muslim could ever be a member of a group that taught this as their credo.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

The distinction always seems to hinge on the degree of equality you want to give the animals. If you go too far to the extreme of saying every animal is equal, it becomes the excess of egalitarianism. As someone put it, we don't treat animals like humans for the same reason we don't charge animals with crimes, like an elephant stomping a person to death.

There are indeed basic limits with how we treat animals, but it's not as if we should have a feeling of excessive entitlement. We are hardly perfect either when we think we are benefitting animals or ourselves. We can think we are entitled to too much and overhunt/fish or simply treat animals as commodities instead of living sentient beings, such as even when we abuse domestic animals. And then there are times when we think we are helping, but only cause damage to the ecosystem and habitat, such as with kudzu or other transmitted animals from varied places in the world.

It's the difficulty of walking a fine line between centering totally on humans and centering totally on equality that makes this difficult. Not to mention of course ethical difficulties such as animal testing for medical advancements that no doubt make many people uncomfortable and potentially go to the extreme of suggesting we are ethically equal in every sense to animals, which I can agree is problematic.