Section VII Chapter 10 -- Christian Attitudes Towards Animals "And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." -- Genesis 1:26, on day 6 of Creation "The popular mind has always been in advance of the metaphysicians with reference to the mental endowments of animals. For some reason, there has been a perpetual hesitation among many of the latter to recognize in the manifestations of the animal mind, the same characteristics that are displayed by the human intellect: less the high position of man should be shaken or impaired." -- Lewis Henry Morgan (1868) Western vs Eastern Paradigm on Animals Throughout recorded history, various cultures and religions have reflected on what it means to be a human vis-à-vis an animal. The early Greek philosophers, were among the first to ponder (and record for posterity) the meaning of human life. According to an ancient Greek legend, Plato gathered the most learned philosophers of Athens to come up with a definition of what it meant to be human. They concluded that a human is-- "a featherless biped". [Note, a biped is a creature walking on two legs]. Diogenes the Cynic, was said to have burst into their room, carrying a plucked chicken. Waving it before the learned crowd, he shouted--"Behold, Plato's man!" The philosopher Aristotle later defined humans as "rational animals", and this became the generally accepted definition used by most philosophers in western civilization. Judaic-Christian doctrine taught that humans were, by divine decree, a special form of creation. Created separate from the rest of the animal kingdom by God on Day 6 of Creation, humans were created in the image of God and imbued with a soul. Animals were created WITHOUT a soul--to serve man. Humans were thus positioned on the highest rung of the ladder representing God's creation, while animals were stationed at a lower level of creation. Eastern religions hold a very different paradigm regarding the nature (and therefore status) of animals relative to humans. Eastern religions teach that all life forms are interchangeably interconnected within a vast web of life. According to the doctrine of reincarnation, a human may be reborn on earth as an animal or insect in the next life--and visa versa. As a consequence, moral laws prohibiting killing and eating animals are common in the Eastern religions. Apart from Jewish kosher (dietary) laws, there are no biblical laws protecting animals--unlike in the Eastern religions where some animals are prohibited from being killed or mistreated. Some religious individuals may object towards cruelty towards animals on the grounds that animals are ALSO God's creatures. Jesus was depicted as acting lovingly towards animals and children in the New Testament. --Still, there are no religious mandates (in either the Old or New Testament) that PREVENT one from engaging in cruelty towards animals. Western animal human organizations, such as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) did not form until the middle to late 1800s, in the aftermath of the Enlightenment/Romantic eras. (Interestingly, U.S. laws protecting children from parental abuse were instituted only after some tried to apply the new SPCA laws towards children. See Section VI, Chapter 3). Biblical References to Animals in the Old Testament In the Old and New Testament, God is concerned solely with the fate of humans-- not animals. This can be seen in the Genesis story of Adam and Eve. God becomes angry at Adam and Eve for their sin of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But when they are punished, both they AND the animals are banished out of the garden of Eden. A more dramatic example of how the ancient hebrews viewed animals can be found in the Genesis account of the Flood.-- When God sent the Flood because of his anger towards the wickedness of mankind (see Genesis 6), God does not appear to worry whether the animals also "deserved" death: " And Yahweh saw that the evil of humans was great in the earth and all the inclination of the thoughts of their heart was only evil all the day. And Yahweh regretted that he had made humans in the earth and he was grieved to his heart. And Yahweh said, "I shall wipe out the humans which I have created from the face of the earth, from human to beast to creeping thing to bird of the heavens, for I regret that I have made them." (Genesis 6:6-8) Verses 11-13, seem to imply that animals ("all flesh") were also corrupted: " And the Earth was corrupted before God, and the Earth was filled with violence. And God saw the Earth, and here it was corrupted, for all flesh had corrupted its way on the earth. And God said to Noah, 'The end of all flesh has come before me, for the Earth is filled with violence because of them, and here I am going to destroy them with the Earth.'" (Genesis 6:11-13) A few verses later, God expresses His desire to destroy all life on earth: " And here I am bringing the flood, water over the Earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under the heavens. Everything which is on the land will die." (Genesis 6:17) Some have questioned whether God also intended to kill the creatures living in the sea--ie fishes and sea mammals such as dolphins, whales-- if He meant to "destroy all flesh". Because of Noah's goodness, God determined to save a remnant of human and animal life so they could reproduce. Noah was instructed to build a large ark that would hold two of each species --a male and a female: " And of all the living, of all flesh, you shall bring two to the ark to keep alive with you, they shall be male and female. (Genesis 6:19) (Footnote, in Genesis 7:2-3, this is repeated slightly differently, whereby God commands Noah to take seven pairs of all clean beasts, presumably so that Noah's family could eat five pairs of the clean beasts. The implication of the story of Flood, is that the world AND THE ANIMALS in it were spared, because of the goodness of one HUMAN--Noah. New Testament Reference to Animals Jesus is often described in meek and loving terms as the "Lamb" of god. Still, apart from metaphors, the fate of animals is not given serious attention in the New Testament.--Animals are not given the opportunity to "believe" in order for them to obtain eternal life. Nor are any animals thought to suffer the eternal tortures of hell.-- The fate of heaven or hell is reserved for humans. Animals will die a natural death. (This has not prevented some animal lovers from hoping, and therefore believing, that they will be reunited some day with their beloved pets in heaven.) The indifference towards animals can be seen in the New Testament story of the miracle of Gerasenes. Jesus confronts a man who is possessed by demons, and cures him by transferring the demons into a herd of pigs. The pigs then run off a cliff and die. (Luke 8:26-33,Mark 5:1-13) The implication is that the pigs needed to be sacrificed in order to effect a cure. However, the issue of saving the animals was never considered important enough to be worth mentioning. This attitude towards animals is consistent throughout Western religious tradition. That is, no where are there any divine injunctions (by God or priests) ordering animals to worship, or profess belief in a God or savior. Nor are there any requirements for animals to initiate religious rituals on their own. The implication is that animals are not deemed capable of engaging in religious ritual and worship--because only humans have been endowed with a mind and the ability to "choose" between good and evil. St Augustine's Doctrine of "Original Sin" as applied to Animals St Augustine carefully studied the Genesis story of Adam and Eve for clues as to why evil existed in the world and humans suffered. Augustine reasoned that Adam had gained a kind of perverse free will when he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. This free will also brought upon Adam and Eve a "rebellion in the flesh"--meaning sexual desire. Sexual desire and pleasure were unleashed, and transmitted to all newborn babies through "the sexual act". Per Augustine, this is technically how all individuals are born corrupted with the "Original Sin" of Adam and Eve. Only Jesus, escaped the curse of Adam and Eve's "Original Sin"--because he was born of a virgin. St. Augustine believed his doctrine of "Original Sin" explained why humans suffered. Others have noted that St. Augustine's doctrine fails to explain WHY INSECTS AND ANIMALS MUST ALSO SUFFER! For anyone who has studied nature, will observe that animals are exposed to the SAME ravages that afflict humans--disease, old age, violence, and natural disasters--including droughts and floods. Even mental illnesses--such as depression and psychotic behavior--have been documented in the wild by such researchers as Jane Goodall. Thus, if St. Augustine was correct in postulating that Adam and Eve's "Original Sin" corrupted all humans at birth--then what mechanism explains how such behavior also crossed over into the animal AND insect kingdom? Unfortunately St Augustine did not attempt to "test" his doctrine with these types of examples. Changing Paradigms on What it Means to be an Animal Early Christians took their sacred history from the Jews, but it was from the Greeks that they developed much of their doctrines on the soul and on heaven. As we have seen, the Old Testament portrayed humans as being positioned higher on the hierarchical scale of life than the animals. God made man in His (ie God's) image. Animals were made for the use of humans. God was concerned over the happenings of humans--demanding worship from them as their only God. Animals were not required to worship God, nor were there any humane laws on how to treat animals (apart from how to kill them or how to eat them.) The Greek mystery religions (which borrowed heavily from Egypt) believed in the existence of a soul that was separate from the body. If the individual lived a moral and good life on earth, his/her soul was thought to ascend into a heavily realm up in the sky-- else it would descend towards earth (or another planet) where it entered either into a human or animal life form. Platonic and neo-platonic views on the human soul and heaven were very attractive to early Christian thinkers. However, Christians (falling back on explicit Old Testament passages) emphasized that only humans were candidates for heavens. Instead of wicked souls entering into the bodies of animals after death, Christian doctrine sent the souls of nonbelievers to eternal tortures in hell. On into the Middle Ages, Christians focused on their own spiritual salvation in a future heavenly life, without much thought to their worldly life or to the animals that shared life on this side with them. Medieval scholars such as St. Thomas Aquinas, reasoned that animals were irrational creatures who could not choose because they were not granted free will by God. There were some Catholic saints who were said to have made friends with animals. One example was St. David of Garesja who was said to have protected deer and birds from hunters, arguing "He whom I believe in and worship looks after and feeds all his creatures". It was not until the Renaissance, that new scientific discoveries led some to question the roles of humans and animals. William Harvey's discovery of the circulation of blood in both animals and humans reopened the question of the relationship of humans with the animal kingdom. This greatly impressed individuals, such as Descartes-- prompting them to renew speculation on the differences between humans and the animal world. Still influenced by medieval thinking, Descartes reasoned that only humans (and not animals) possessed a soul. The soul (which by definition was of a different material than the body) was the source of our mind--and thus thinking. Because animals have no soul, Descartes reasoned they had no mechanism for having thoughts. Descartes concluded: "...the reason why animals do not speak as we do is not that they lack the organs [ie speech] but because they have no thoughts." Animals thus have a body--but this is an empty shell--for no soul inhabits it. Descartes concluded that animals were "thoughtless brutes", or "automata (ie machines). Since they had no thoughts, Descartes concluded that animals could not really "suffer" as humans do. Enlightenment philosophers, who looked for more NATURAL as opposed to SUPERNATURAL explanations of the world, noted the similarity in physical structure between humans and animals--and questioned whether the same was not also true with the MIND. Voltaire argued that animals are constructed similarly to humans--therefore it was absurd to conclude that animals are of a completely different nature than humans. In his LE PHILOSOPHE IGNORANT, Voltaire lashed out how Descartes, "dared to say that animals are pure machines who looked for food when they had no appetite, who had the organs for feeling only to never have the slightest feeling, who screamed without pain, who showed their pleasure without joy, who possessed a brain only to have in it not even the slightest idea, and who were in this way a perpetual contradiction of nature." Voltaire had earlier noted how both Isaac Newton and John Locke, two people he admired very much, were likewise convinced that animals were not the automata described by Descartes. Per Voltaire, Newton "believed that it was a very terrible contradiction to believe that animals could feel, and yet cause them to suffer." (Examples taken from Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson and Susan McCarthy, WHEN ELEPHANTS WEEP, THE EMOTIONAL LIVES OF ANIMALS, Delacorte Press, Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing, pp 18-9) Romantic philosophers and writers agreed with their Enlightened counterparts that animals had feelings, and could suffer. To Romantics, animals were the friends and brothers of humans, and as such, pain could be felt as it was by humans. Romantics were not always consistent in their view towards animals. Some viewed animals as naturally good and docile creatures--as they were born in the wild apart from the evil civilizations of men. Other Romantics believed BOTH animals and humans were controlled by dark, primeval and mysterious passions. Humans were portrayed as using their superior mind to inflict unusual tortures and cruelties, which their animal counterparts could never conceive. This Romantic view influenced the philosopher William James, who wrote: "Man...is simply the most formidable of all the beasts of prey, and, indeed, the only one that preys systematically on his species." Even Thomas Jefferson (who was a product of the Enlightenment) was influenced by the Romantic notion that ONLY humans exhibited cruelty toward their own kind. (Of course, in fairness both to James and Jefferson, there was no documented behavior of animals in the wild then, to test this view.) Charles Darwin's theory of evolution overturned much of the earlier paradigms on what it meant to be an human. Instead of being specially and uniquely created by God, evolution taught that humans had their roots in the animal kingdom. Therefore differences between humans and animals were one of DEGREE--as opposed to humans and animals being in a separate, unrelated class. More modern naturalists have gone out and OBSERVED the environment in which animals live, as opposed to theorizing what it "should" be like. They have found that animals do NOT live under a kind, ideal, or moral conditions. Instead, animals live under a "law of the jungle"-- which can be violent, cruel, and capricious. Strong animals prey on the weak. Living creatures learn at an early age that they must either kill or be killed, eat or be eaten. There appears to be no one set of rules on animal conduct. Some animal species are prone to polygamy, promiscuity, and rape--while other animal species are monogamous and faithful to their mates. Violence has been observed both to gain control of a group or to obtain sexual privileges. Treachery and cannibalism have also been observed in the wild. Some social scientists have invoked Darwin's theory of evolution to link the violence seen in humans back to our animal origins. How do Humans Differ from Animals? There are two modern models of the human brain that have come down to us today-- (1) Enlightened (rational) model: That humans and animals SHARE the same biology, including underlying functioning of their minds. Because the human mind has arisen from natural/physical causes--it can be broken down into its components and scientifically UNDERSTOOD. (2) Romantic (irrational) model: That there is a mysterious, spiritual dimension to the human mind--which will never yield all of its secrets to scientific probing. In his DESCENT OF MAN, Charles Darwin stressed the continuity between human and animal experience. Human beings evolved from animals--as opposed to being separately created from animals. This meant that humans may share physical mechanism with the animals, including the inter-workings of their brains. The analogy often given is to compare the human mind with a computer.-- Our mind's physical development from our animal origins can be compared to the HARDWARE of the computer, while our culture and upbringing can be compared to the SOFTWARE that runs on the computer. The hardware that we share with animals includes such abilities as awareness, recognition, associative thought, and physiological forms of emotion. The software of the brain can be thought of as culturally molded parts, including logical thought and self awareness. (John McCrone, THE MYTH OF IRRATIONALITY, p 48-9). During the late nineteenth up into the middle of the twentieth century, the Romantic view that human minds had somehow developed INDEPENDENTLY of the animals--and that mysterious forces lurked in the subconscious of human minds--became the common view among psychologists. Sigmund Freud's psychology borrowed heavily from the well of Romantic thought. Freud viewed the mind as a "psychic pressure cooker", where dark unconscious desires--arising primarily from repressed sexual/erotic energies--could flood the mind and cause psychic mental problems. Psychologists sometimes based their models of the unconscious on our animal urges--but still viewed the latter as irrational and mysterious. Social scientists viewed humans along religious humanistic lines--that is, humans were viewed as special creatures who could be uplifted into ideal citizens through proper education and culture. As such, CULTURE was emphasized, while BIOLOGY (and its emphasis on the "shared" mental hardware of animals and humans) was virtually ignored. For example, early social scientists asserted (without testing) that animals could not communicate through language. It was also simplistically asserted that animals could not use tools--except for simple sticks and stones for defense. It was not until a series of scientific studies were set up to observe actual animal behavior in the wild (beginning in the 1960s), that these definitions had to be altered. Chimpanzees were observed to use sticks not only as weapons--but to pry open box lids and to dig into the ground for roots. Chimpanzees even were seen INSTRUCTING their young how to use tricks-- such as how to poke a blade of grass into underground nests to extract termites for food. This was not an easy task, and one human researcher wrote how it took him weeks of trial and error before he got it right. (Luckily his chimpanzee trainer was patient with his failures). Other studies demonstrated that certain animals could plan as a team (showing intent), recognize themselves in mirrors (showing self-awareness) and determine what action was needed (showing inference.) Even language was not unique to humans--as dolphins and whales were found to use a clicking language, and gorillas could be taught how to use sign language. However, although similarities were found between the mental processing of humans and animals--important differences existed as well. The human brain had evolved to have a larger frontal section of the brain--which appeared to give it a higher mental advantage over other animals. Although other animals had been found to communicate, humans appeared to use speech "differently" than the higher apes. Other studies on chimpanzees showed that they could not infer what others were thinking. For example, in one study, chimpanzees could not correctly pick treats hidden under one of two overturned cups, even though the experimenter was trying to give visual clues by pointing to the cup with the treat underneath it. In another study, chimpanzees did not seem to understand that they would be less successful begging food from a person with a bucket covering his head, than a person carrying a bucket on his shoulder. John McCrone has theorized in his books, FOR THE APE THAT SPOKE, and THE MYTH OF IRRATIONALITY, that only humans have developed a malleable template that forms an internal voice which is at the crossroads of higher intelligence. Thus, while some animals, such as gorillas may be taught hand signs which they use to form sentences--they do not have the physical hardware structure for internalizing these signs in their minds--which would form the basis of higher thought. (See Section VII, Chapter 6 for a discussion of McCrone's model of human consciousness.) The Victorian neurologist John Hughlings Jackson put it this way: Humans "speak not only to tell other people what we think, but to tell OURSELVES what we think. Speech is part of thought." (As quoted by John McCrone, THE MYTH OF IRRATIONALITY--THE SCIENCE OF THE MIND FROM PLATO TO STAR TREK, Carroll & Graff, 1993, pp 128-9.) Although animals have been observed to grieve for the deaths of other animals, it is possible (applying McCrone's model) that they have NO mental capacity for applying this information to APPREHEND THEIR OWN FUTURE DEATH. Animals do not, on their own accord, appear to engage in prayers or other religious rituals to worship some spiritual being. Instead (some have observed) certain animals, such as dogs, appear to look up to their human masters as "gods"--because they (incorrectly) perceive that their human masters have the power to grant them all their needs and wants. According to McCrone's model of the mind, although we share some of our basic hardware with animals, it is culture that molds the human software of our brain, to form the inner voice in our minds. Interestingly, it is this inner voice that may form the basis of human morality. Everyone has seen the characterization of a little angel whispering good thoughts in one ear, and a little devil whispering bad thoughts in the other. This means that our "inner voice" can review and evaluate various courses of action-- including those that are not socially acceptable. What Observations on Animal Behavior Can Tell Us About the Roots of Morality The philosopher Immanuel Kant disagreed with the above analysis. Instead, Kant believed that our human sense of morality was NOT acquired from the SOCIAL or CULTURAL environment we are brought up in--but was instead hard wired, or imprinted upon our brains from birth. As we have already seen in Section VI, Chapter 5, Kant believed this "moral proof" was evidence of another spiritual dimension present in our lives. Critics of Kant's model have noted serious difficulties with it. One difficulty, is the observation that humans across different cultures and backgrounds do NOT agree on the same absolute system of moral values. This would indicate that much of our human moral systems are "learned" from our culture, as opposed to being "innate". It has been observed that even animals may be "trainable" by their human masters to learn right or wrong--and may even exhibit guilt if they have done wrong. But the dog's framework of right from wrong varies from animal to animal. Some dogs are brought up to be gentle with children. Other dogs may be trained to viciously attack on orders of their master, without hesitation. (Humans may be seen to be moldable in a similar way--such as when soldiers are trained to kill upon command. The "best" soldiers are those who are taught to "obey", and not to think too much for themselves--so as to internalize the wishes of their superior officer as their own.) True, some basic morality--such as mothers caring for their young--do appear to be hardwired in both humans AND animals. Using Darwin's evolutionary theory, it could be argued that those species that did not develop a system which helped their children survive--either through mass reproduction or mother nurturing (based on a need for touching)-- eventually become extinct as a species. Some animals societies may have developed social laws which promoted group harmony and helped the community survive over time. According to Frans de Waal, some animals living together in communities have developed social norms that dictate proper (or moral) behavior. In his book, GOOD NATURED (Harvard University Press, 1995), he notes how some animals hold their natural sexual desires in "check", when there is a social structure present that expresses rebuttal and anger from preying on other members of the group. Even such moral virtues as sharing are encouraged, when for example de Waal observed how previously greedy chimpanzees were not allowed by the group to share in newly discovered food (apparently in punishment for their past behavior). De Waal sees in such community living the seeds of civilization. Per De Waal, "Human morality can be looked at as community concern made explicit... Our ancestors began to understand how to preserve peace and order--hence how to keep their groups united against external threats...They came to judge behavior that systematically undermined the social fabric as wrong, and behavior that made a community worthwhile to live in as right." (as quoted by "The Roots of Good and Evil--What can Chimps tell us about our Moral Nature?" NEWSWEEK, February 26, 1996) Do Animals Possess Feelings? Regardless of how similar (or dissimilar) our minds are with animals in terms of intellectual capacity, one thing is certain. Animals can have genuine emotional responses. Several stories illustrating this, were presented by Jeffrey Masson and Susan McCarthy in their book, WHEN ANIMALS WEEP--THE EMOTIONAL LIVES OF ANIMALS: Biologist Marcy Cottrell Houle was observing two peregrine falcons in the Rocky Mountains who were both busy hunting food to feed their five nestlings. One day, the mother did not show up at the nest. (The biologist later learned she had probably been shot). Over the course of the next days, Houle noted a pronounced behavior change in the father. He appeared to call out over and over--sometimes looking into the nest uttering an enquiring "echup". After the third day after the mother's disappearance, the biologist became startled by a cry late in the day that sounded "like the screeching moan of a wounded animal, the cry of a creature in suffering." Shocked by the intensity of the cry, Houle wrote, "The sadness in the outcry was unmistakable; having heard it, I will never doubt that an animal can suffer emotions that we humans think belong to our species alone." After emitting the cry, the father sat motionless on the same rock all through the fourth day. On the fifth day, the father falcon began a frenzied stage of hunting for his nestlings. Houle reported that she had never seen a falcon work so incessantly from dawn until dusk. After several days, biologists climbed up to check on the falcon's nest. They found that three of the nestlings had starved to death, but that the other two were now thriving under their father's care. The events convinced Houle that the father falcon had been in such grief that he had not adequately fed his children for several days. (As reported by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson and Susan McCarthy, WHEN ANIMALS WEEP, THE EMOTIONAL LIVES OF ANIMALS, Delacorte Press, Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc. June 1995, pp 91-2) Dian Fossey reported that she once saw a mountain gorilla named Coco cry. Coco was three or four years old when her family was killed to obtain her capture. She had spent a month in a small cage and had become ill before Fossey had obtained possession of her. Fossey released Coco into an indoor pen with a window that looked out on a forested mountainside similar to the one she had grown up in. Fossey said that when Coco first looked outside her window, she began "to sob and shed actual tears." Fossey stated she never witnessed a gorilla do this before or afterward. (Ibid. p 109) Charles Darwin was greatly touched by the stories of dogs, who were loyal to their masters even as they lay in the throes of death: "In the agony of death a dog has been known to caress his master, and every one has heard of the dog suffering under vivisection, who licked the hand of the operator; this man, unless the operation was fully justified by an increase of our knowledge, or unless he had a heart of stone, must have felt remorse to the last hour of his life." (Darwin was projecting his own feelings here. Many humans exhibiting cruelty toward animals appear to be free from any feelings of any remorse.) Elephants have been reported to shed tears. Darwin noted reports on how captured elephants sometimes cried. --In one case a young elephant reportedly sank to the ground "uttering choking cries, with tears trickling down its cheeks." (Ibid, p 106). Zoo keepers have reported that captive elephants may be subject to "sudden-death syndrome" or "broken-heart syndrome" which occurs when elephants (especially young ones) are separated from the elephants they grew up with. (Ibid., p 52) Elephants appear to care about other members of their herd. One African herd was observed to travel slowly because one of the elephants had never fully recovered from a broken leg. Likewise, a park warden reported seeing a herd where a female elephant was carrying a small calf that had been dead for several days. She placed her dead baby on the ground whenever she ate or drank. The rest of the herd waited for her, even though she moved slowly from carrying her dead calf. (Ibid, p 78) Elephants also appear to grieve. An elder female African elephant swayed and fell, as she was dying. Other elephants clustered around her in an attempt to help her up. Some elephants stroked her with their trunks, while a calf attempted to suckle. One young male attempted to lift her with his tusk, put food in her mouth, and even sexually mount her--all with no response. Finally, the herd moved on. But one last female and her calf stayed behind. She kept her back to the dead elephant, now and then reaching out to touch her with her foot. Finally, after some time, the other elephants called to her and she slowly walked away with them. (Ibid, p 95) * * * The fact that animals share some of the hardware (including feelings) once thought to be exclusively human--has important implications on the scientific and commercial testing of animals for research. Few can question the need for scientific tests to be conducted in order to discover improved and safe products. However, this does not dismiss the obligation of individuals from conducting their experiments in the most humane manner possible--with the ultimate goal of minimizing pain and suffering for animals, as well as for humans.