Moral status of animals in the ancient world

Last updated

Contemporary debates about animal welfare and animal rights can be traced back to ancient history. Records from as early as the 6th century before the common era (BCE) include discussions of animal ethics in Jain and Greek texts. The relations between humans and nonnhumans are also discussed in the books of Exodus and Genesis, Jewish writings from the 6th or 5th century BCE.

Contents

Jainism

Jainism, dating from the 6th century BCE, is the oldest religious philosophy which has advocated complete non-violence towards animals of all forms. The Jain concept ahiṃsā or non-violence is the first in the basic set of Principles of Jainism.

Ancient Greek Philosophy

Pythagoras (c. 580-c.500 BCE) Kapitolinischer Pythagoras adjusted.jpg
Pythagoras (c. 580–c.500 BCE)

Psychologist Richard Ryder, former Mellon Professor at Tulane University and chairman of the RSPCA in 1977, writes that it is in 6th century BCE Greek philosophy that we first find concern for the treatment of animals. [1]

Four schools of thought were influential in ancient Greece: animism, vitalism, mechanism, and anthropocentrism. The philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras (c. 580–c. 500 BCE) was the central figure within animism. He urged respect for animals, because he believed that humans and non-humans had the same kind of soul, one spirit that pervades the universe and makes us one with animals. [2] The souls were indestructible, made of fire and air, and were reincarnated from human to animal, or vice versa, the so-called transmigration of the soul. He was a vegetarian, and was reportedly the first animal "liberationist", buying animals from the market in order to set them free. [1] [3]

Against these ideas, Aristotle (384–322 BCE) argued that non-human animals had no interests of their own, ranking far below humans in the Great Chain of Being, or scala naturae, because of their alleged irrationality. [4] He was the first to attempt the creation of a taxonomical categorization and hierarchy of animals. Aristotle perceived some similarities between humans and other species and developed a sort of "psychological continuum", recognising that human and non-human animals differ only by degree in possessing certain temperaments. [5] Nevertheless, he denied animals rationality and moral equality. "Plants are created for the sake of animals," he wrote, "and animals for the sake of men." [6] Aristotle argued that humans were the "masters" in his created hierarchical structure based upon their rational powers. [5]

One of Aristotle's pupils, Theophrastus, argued against eating meat on the grounds that it robbed animals of life and was therefore unjust. He argued that non-human animals can reason, sense, and feel just as human beings do. [7] Theophrastus did not prevail, and it was Aristotle's position—that human and non-human animals exist in different moral realms because one is rational and the other not—that persisted largely unchallenged in the West for nearly two thousand years.

Judaism

While the first chapter of Book of Genesis describes how God gave human beings dominion over animals, this is tempered throughout the Torah by injunctions to show kindness and to respect animals. Severing a limb from a live animal and eating it was forbidden (Genesis 9:4), cattle were to be rested on Biblical Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; 23:12), a cow and her calf were not to be killed on the same day (Leviticus 22:28), a person had to feed his animals before himself (Deuteronomy 11:15), animal suffering had to be relieved (Deuteronomy 22:4), oxen treading the corn were not to be muzzled (Deuteronomy 25:4), kids were not to be cooked in their mother's milk (Deuteronomy 14:21), mother birds not to be disturbed while sitting on eggs (Deuteronomy 22:6-7), and oxen and asses not to be yoked together (Deuteronomy 22:10). In the opening chapters of Genesis, human beings are not permitted to eat meat at all, though after the Flood, meat-eating was permitted within certain limits. [8]

The Jewish oral tradition developed the principle of Tza'ar ba'alei chayim, forbidding inflicting unnecessary pain on animals. This concept was accepted by the Talmud (Bava Metzia 32b) as being a Biblical mandate. It is linked in the Talmud from the Biblical law requiring people to assist in unloading burdens from animals (Exodus 23:5).

The Seven Laws of Noah, or the Noahide Laws, are a set of moral imperatives that, according to the Talmud, were given by God as a binding set of laws for the "children of Noah" – that is, all of humanity; the sixth law is: Do not eat of a live animal. This law is derived from Genesis 9:4, as interpreted in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 59a).

Compassion for animals is declared to have been the merit of Moses which made him the shepherd of his people (Exodus Rabbah 2), while Judah ha-Nasi saw in his own ailment the punishment for having once failed to show compassion for a frightened calf. [9]

The book of Genesis declares that God created humans in his own image, "saying to them, 'Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and conquer it. Be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven and all living animals on the earth' "(Genesis 1.28). In both the Greek book of Genesis (the Septuaginta (LXX)) and the Hebrew book of Genesis, animals and humans are said to be, not have, a living soul. [10] [ better source needed ] This living soul that non-human animals and humans are, is called nephesh, and is associated with the breath of life that YHWH has given in each individual [10] [ circular reference ].

Saint Thomas Aquinas argued in the 13th century that humans should be kind to animals to make sure that cruel habits do not carry over into our treatment of other human beings, an argument that remains influential. St-thomas-aquinas.jpg
Saint Thomas Aquinas argued in the 13th century that humans should be kind to animals to make sure that cruel habits do not carry over into our treatment of other human beings, an argument that remains influential.

Ancient Roman thought

Philosopher Peter Singer writes that animals, along with criminals and other undesirables, largely fell outside the Roman moral sphere. He quotes a description from the historian W.E.H. Lecky of the Roman games, first held in 366 BCE:

[E]very variety of atrocity was devised to stimulate flagging interest. At one time, a bear and a bull, chained together, rolled in fierce combat across the sand ... Four hundred bears were killed in a single day under Caligula [12–41] ... Under Nero [37–68], four hundred tigers fought with bulls and elephants. In a single day, at the dedication of the Colosseum by Titus [39–81], five thousand animals perished. Under Trajan [53–117] ... lions, tigers, elephants, rhinoceroses, hippopotami, giraffes, bulls, stags, even crocodiles and serpents were employed to give novelty to the spectacle ... So intense was the craving for blood, that a prince was less unpopular if he neglected the distribution of corn than if he neglected the games. [12]

Meat eating was a status symbol, and animals were often cooked alive; Ryder writes that pigs were skewered alive on hot spits to improve the taste. He writes that there were nevertheless signs of tender feelings for animals in the poetry of Virgil (70–19 BCE), Lucretius (99–55 BCE), and Ovid (43 BCE–17 CE). The statesman Seneca (4 BCE–65 CE) was a vegetarian and said that he found the practice of vegetarianism not only moral but also delightful, [13] as were the philosophers Plutarch (46–120 CE), Plotinus (205–270 CE), and Porphyry (232–305 CE). Porphyry wrote two tracts on the issue, De abstinentia ( On Abstinence from Eating Animals ) and De Non Necandis ad Epulandum Animantibus (On the Impropriety of Killing Living Beings for Food). [14] Plutarch, who was Greek but lived in Rome, argued strongly against meat eating, seeing it as responsible for much of the cruelty in the world:

For the sake of some little mouthful of flesh, we deprive a soul of the sun and light ... And then we fancy that the voices it utters and screams forth to us are nothing else but certain inarticulate sounds and noises, and not the ... entreaties ... of each of them ... [15]

Concept of "ius"

Legal philosopher John Finnis writes that the Romans invented the concept of "ius", meaning what is right, just, or lawful, and it is from this concept that the idea of a "right" as a claim, an entitlement, an immunity, or a liberty, arose in the late-medieval to modern period. He writes that it remains unclear how the concept of ius developed into the idea of modern rights, but a key feature of the latter is that the relationship between persons is articulated from the perspective of the relationship's beneficiary, the holder of the right. This is an important idea in the development of the concept of animal rights, the essence of which is to view the relationship between human and non-human from the perspective of the animal as beneficiary, rather than from the perspective of the human, which is how most animal protection legislation is framed. The idea is that any wrong not only "deforms the agent", as Finnis writes of human beings, but also offends the victim's "fundamental equality". [16]

Hinduism and Buddhism

A cow resting on a street in Vrindavan, India, free to wander around Surabhi Cow Vrindavan.jpg
A cow resting on a street in Vrindavan, India, free to wander around

Both Hindu and Buddhist societies saw widespread vegetarianism from the 3rd century BCE, in line with ahimsa , the doctrine of non-violence. Ryder writes that animals were thought to possess the same feelings as human beings, and several kings of ancient India built hospitals for sick animals. Human souls could be reborn as animals if they had behaved badly, with all souls regarded as part of the Supreme Being. Failing to observe the duty to care could lead to bad karma, which increased the likelihood of returning as an animal next time round. [17]

Islam

Muhammad (570–632) taught that it was permissible to kill animals, but to do so unnecessarily or with cruelty was forbidden. "If you must kill, kill without torture." [18] He saw animals as having internal mental states. They should not be bound when being slaughtered, and should not be made to wait. To let an animal see you sharpen your knife is to kill it twice. [19]

Polytheism

Some varieties of animism, totemism, religions of indigenous peoples, paganism and many versions of polytheism hold the belief that animals are spiritual beings; people practicing these belief systems have great respect towards the right to life of animals. [20]

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 Ryder, Richard. Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism. Berg, 2000, p. 17.
  2. Gary Steiner, Anthropocentrism and its Discontents: The Moral Status of Animals in the History of Western Philosophy. University of Pittsburgh Press, 2005, at page 47.
  3. Taylor, Angus. Animals and Ethics. Broadview Press, 2003, p. 34.
    • Also see Huffman, Carl. "Pythagoras", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2006. Retrieved January 10, 2007.
  4. "Animal Rights." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007.
  5. 1 2 Mark R. Fellenz, The Moral Menagerie: Philosophy and Animal Rights. University of Illinois Press, 2007, p. 90.
  6. Quoted in Francione, Gary. Animals, Property, and the Law. Temple University Press, 1995, p. 37.
  7. Taylor, Angus. Animals and Ethics. Broadview Press, 2003, p. 35.
  8. Ryder, Richard. Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism. Berg, 2000, p. 25
  9. The Jewish Encyclopedia, Volume 5, page 251
  10. 1 2 Nephesh
  11. Singer, Peter. "Animals" in Honderich, Ted (ed). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995.
  12. Lecky, W.E.H. History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne. Vol. 1, Longmans, 1869, pp. 280-282, cited in Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. Random House, 1990, p. 190.
  13. Daniel A. Dombrowski, The Philosophy of Vegetarianism, 81 (1984).
  14. Ryder, Richard D. Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes towards Speciesism. Berg, 2000, p. 19.
  15. Plutarch "Of eating of flesh," cited in Ryder, Richard D. Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes towards Speciesism. Berg, 2000, p. 19.
  16. Finnis, John. "Natural rights" in Honderich, Ted. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press, 1995. Note that, in this entry, Finnis discusses human rights only.
  17. Ryder, Richard D. Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes towards Speciesism. Berg, 2000, p. 21.
  18. Masri, Al-Hafiz Basheer Ahmad. Islamic Concern for Animals. Athene Trust, 1987, cited in Ryder, Richard D. Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes towards Speciesism. Berg, 2000, p. 23.
  19. Ryder, Richard D. Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes towards Speciesism. Berg, 2000, p. 23.
  20. Harvey, G. (2006). Animism: respecting the living world. New York: Columbia University Press.

Related Research Articles

Non-cognitivism is the meta-ethical view that ethical sentences do not express propositions and thus cannot be true or false. A noncognitivist denies the cognitivist claim that "moral judgments are capable of being objectively true, because they describe some feature of the world". If moral statements cannot be true, and if one cannot know something that is not true, noncognitivism implies that moral knowledge is impossible.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Speciesism</span> Discrimination against non-human creatures solely on the basis of their species membership

Speciesism is a term used in philosophy regarding the treatment of individuals of different species. The term has several different definitions within the relevant literature. Some sources specifically define speciesism as discrimination or unjustified treatment based on an individual's species membership, while other sources define it as differential treatment without regard to whether the treatment is justified or not. Richard Ryder, who coined the term, defined it as "a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species." Speciesism results in the belief that humans have the right to use non-human animals, which scholars say is pervasive in the modern society. Studies from 2015 and 2019 suggest that people who support animal exploitation also tend to endorse racist, sexist, and other prejudicial views, which furthers the beliefs in human supremacy and group dominance to justify systems of inequality and oppression.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Richard D. Ryder</span> English animal rights advocate (born 1940)

Richard Hood Jack Dudley Ryder is an English writer, psychologist, and animal rights advocate.

Kosher foods are foods that conform to the Jewish dietary regulations of kashrut. The laws of kashrut apply to food derived from living creatures and kosher foods are restricted to certain types of mammals, birds and fish meeting specific criteria; the flesh of any animals that do not meet these criteria is forbidden by the dietary laws. Furthermore, kosher mammals and birds must be slaughtered according to a process known as shechita and their blood may never be consumed and must be removed from the meat by a process of salting and soaking in water for the meat to be permissible for use. All plant-based products, including fruits, vegetables, grains, herbs and spices, are intrinsically kosher, although certain produce grown in the Land of Israel is subjected to other requirements, such as tithing, before it may be consumed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Finnis</span>

John Mitchell Finnis is an Australian legal philosopher and jurist specializing in jurisprudence and the philosophy of law. He is an original interpreter of Aristotle and Aquinas, and counts Germain Grisez as a major influence and collaborator. He has made contributions to epistemology, metaphysics, and moral philosophy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Animal rights movement</span> Animal consideration social movement

The animal rights (AR) movement, sometimes called the animal liberation, animal personhood, or animal advocacy movement, is a social movement that seeks an end to the rigid moral and legal distinction drawn between human and non-human animals, an end to the status of animals as property, and an end to their use in the research, food, clothing, and entertainment industries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephen R. L. Clark</span> British philosopher

Stephen Richard Lyster Clark is an English philosopher and professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Liverpool. Clark specialises in the philosophy of religion and animal rights, writing from a philosophical position that might broadly be described as Christian Platonist. He is the author of twenty books, including The Moral Status of Animals (1977), The Nature of the Beast (1982), Animals and Their Moral Standing (1997), G.K. Chesterton (2006), Philosophical Futures (2011), and Ancient Mediterranean Philosophy (2012), as well as 77 scholarly articles, and chapters in another 109 books. He is a former editor-in-chief of the Journal of Applied Philosophy (1990–2001).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ethics of eating meat</span> Food ethics topic

Conversations regarding the ethics of eating meat are focused on whether or not it is moral to eat non-human animals. Ultimately, this is a debate that has been ongoing for millennia, and it remains one of the most prominent topics in food ethics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Animal rights</span> Belief that animals have interests that should be considered

Animal rights is the philosophy according to which many or all sentient animals have moral worth independent of their utility to humans, and that their most basic interests—such as avoiding suffering—should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings. Broadly speaking, and particularly in popular discourse, the term "animal rights" is often used synonymously with "animal protection" or "animal liberation". More narrowly, "animal rights" refers to the idea that many animals have fundamental rights to be treated with respect as individuals—rights to life, liberty, and freedom from torture that may not be overridden by considerations of aggregate welfare.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to ethics.

The concept of moral rights for animals is believed to date as far back as Ancient India, particularly early Jainist and Hindu history. What follows is mainly the history of animal rights in the Western world. There is a rich history of animal protection in the ancient texts, lives, and stories of Eastern, African, and Indigenous peoples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vegetarianism in the Romantic Era</span> Aspect of the history of vegetarianism

Vegetarianism in the Romantic Era refers to the rise of vegetarianism associated with the Romanticism movement in Western Europe from the eighteenth to the nineteenth century. Many of the late Romantics argued in favor of a more natural diet which excluded animal flesh for a plethora of reasons including the state of human and animal health, religious beliefs, economy and class division, animal rights, literary influence, as well as from new ideas about anthropology, consumerism, and evolution. The modern vegetarian and vegan movements borrow some of the same principles from the late Romantics to promote the adoption of diets free from animal products.

<i>Animals, Men and Morals</i> Collection of animal rights essays

Animals, Men and Morals: An Inquiry into the Maltreatment of Non-humans (1971) is a collection of essays on animal rights, edited by Oxford philosophers Stanley and Roslind Godlovitch, both from Canada, and John Harris from the UK. The editors were members of the Oxford Group, a group of postgraduate philosophy students and others based at the University of Oxford from 1968, who began raising the idea of animal rights in seminars and campaigning locally against factory farming and otter hunting.

The Oxford Group or Oxford Vegetarians consisted of a group of intellectuals in England in the late 1960s and early 1970s associated with the University of Oxford, who met and corresponded to discuss the emerging concept of animal rights, or animal liberation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carnism</span> Ideology that supports the use and consumption of animal products

Carnism is a concept used in discussions of humanity's relation to other animals, defined as a prevailing ideology in which people support the use and consumption of animal products, especially meat. Carnism is presented as a dominant belief system supported by a variety of defense mechanisms and mostly unchallenged assumptions. The term carnism was coined by social psychologist and author Melanie Joy in 2001 and popularized by her book Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows (2009).

The psychology of eating meat is an area of study seeking to illuminate the confluence of morality, emotions, cognition, and personality characteristics in the phenomenon of the consumption of meat. Research into the psychological and cultural factors of meat-eating suggests correlations with masculinity, support for hierarchical values, and reduced openness to experience. Because meat eating is widely practiced but is sometimes associated with ambivalence, it has been used as a case study in moral psychology to illustrate theories of cognitive dissonance and moral disengagement. Research into the consumer psychology of meat is relevant both to meat industry marketing and to advocates of reduced meat consumption.

Vegetarian ecofeminism is an activist and academic movement which states that all types of oppression are linked and must be eradicated, with a focus on including the domination of humans over nonhuman animals. Through the feminist concept known as intersectionality, it is recognized that sexism, racism, classism, and other forms of inter human discrimination are all connected. Vegetarian ecofeminism aims to include the domination of not only the environment but also of nonhuman animals to the list. Vegetarian ecofeminism is part of the academic and philosophical field of ecofeminism, which states that the ways in which the privileged dominates the oppressed should include the way humans dominate nature. A major theme within ecofeminism is the belief that there is a strong connection between the domination of women and the domination of nature, and that both must be eradicated in order to end oppression.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christianity and animal rights</span> Animal rights in Christianity

The relationship between Christianity and animal rights is complex, with different Christian communities coming to different conclusions about the status of animals. The topic is closely related to, but broader than, the practices of Christian vegetarians and the various Christian environmentalist movements.

<i>An Essay on Abstinence from Animal Food, as a Moral Duty</i> Book by Joseph Ritson

An Essay on Abstinence from Animal Food, as a Moral Duty is a book on ethical vegetarianism and animal rights written by Joseph Ritson, first published in 1802.

<i>On Abstinence from Eating Animals</i> 3rd century treatise on vegetarianism by Porphyry

On Abstinence from Eating Animals is a 3rd century treatise by Porphyry on the ethics of vegetarianism. The four-book treatise was composed by the philosopher as an open letter to Castricius Firmus, a fellow pupil of Plotinus who had renounced a vegetarian diet.