Of mice and men
A
version of this piece was published in the Independent
on the 24th July 2004, under the headline Christians
must see Aristotle was wrong on animals rights.
The past week has presented us with some disturbing
images of our relations with other species. On Wednesday,
this newspaper carried reports both of employees of
the US poultry processor Pilgrims
Pride stamping on live chickens and of tourists in the
Highlands bloodied and sobbing in the face of the onslaught
of thousands of midges. These were unflattering pictures
of human beings, first as victimisers, then as victims.
Then there were more familiar stories. The Japanese
are hoping to engineer a majority on the International
Whaling Commission in favour of a resumption of overt
commercial hunting. When I hear people
say they dont eat whale, a Tokyo
diner was quoted, I feel sorry for them.
Its delicious. I think [whales are] cute too,
but so are cows. Meanwhile, the Indians
plan to construct a huge motorway from Gujarat to Assam,
and local businesses are demanding a route that cuts
through seven national parks and wildlife reserves. If this road is built, warned
one objector, after five or 10 years there
wont be any wildlife left.
The relationship between humankind and other species
is a problematical one, made all the more so by our
confusion over some basic principles. How should we
weigh our interests against those of whales and tigers?
And why should we do so? If we consider ourselves
to be merely animals ourselves
(as evolutionary science might prompt us to think),
why shouldnt we behave like other animals? How
squeamish, after all, is a killer whale? Or if we infer
from our finer feelings our capacity for sympathy,
and what we call conscience that we are in some
sense above that, does that
very superiority entitle us to sacrifice their interests
to ours?
Its ironic that, in the West at least, the assumption
of our absolute rights over other species seems to be
derived largely from the very worldview that evolutionary
science has helped to undermine. The conventional Christian
view has tended to see the non-human world as something
created by God for our benefit and put under our dominion and at our disposal. A classic formulation might be
that of Ignatius of Loyola, who wrote in the 16th century: Man is created to praise, reverence and
serve God our Lord, and by this means to save his soul.
The other things on the face of the earth are created
for Man to help him in attaining the end for which he
is created. Hence, Man is to make use of them in as
far as they help him in the attainment of his end.
In practice, this view is hardly less anthropocentric
than that of modern secular humanism. Its currency means
that even the most humane Christians can be reluctant
to give any strong support to movements that defend
the interests of other species. It seems to many almost
a dereliction of Christian duty to expend mental or
physical energy on the welfare of the other
things on the face of the earth when there
are still so many humans whose lives are ruined by poverty,
war or disease.
But there is an irony also in this tradition, because
its principal source lies not in the Judaeo-Christian
scriptures but in quite alien Hellenistic ideas that
were imported into Christianity rather later. It was
a common observation of the ancient world that there
is in everything a hierarchy, but it was very much a
pagan idea that the purpose of those at the bottom is
to serve those at the top, and it was Aristotle in particular
who declared (though not in these terms) that every
other species of animal exists to serve humankind.
There is, however, an alternative Christian perspective,
and one that can claim to be far more authentically
biblical. In this view, the value of whales, for example,
is not determined by human perceptions whether
we see them as cute or delicious or human requirements, whether for biodiversity,
beauty or blubber. The psalmist says that God made that
leviathan
to play in the sea. The
Book of Proverbs pictures Wisdom watching the Creator
at work and rejoicing always in his presence,
rejoicing in his whole world. The famous
chapter that opens the book of Genesis imagines God
declaring everything he has made to be very
good.
If a genuinely Christian morality is one that seeks
to align our view of the world and our conduct within
it with the will of God, we ought to take seriously
this suggestion that the rest of creation exists not to help [Man] in the attainment of his
end but to give delight to God albeit
a delight that human beings are privileged to share.
We also need finally to discard the ancient pagan assumption
that the function of the weak is to serve the interests
of the strong, and to observe instead the biblical principle
that the responsibility of the strong is to defend the
interests of the weak.
Of course, this still leaves many difficult questions
to be answered. How hard should we strive to prevent
the extinction of individual species? Does it matter
whether creatures survive in the wild? Is it right that
we are so averse to causing pain when nature itself
seems so callous? How far, if at all, are we entitled
to use other creatures, and when does legitimate use
become abuse?
Not to mention, why on earth did God make the midge,
and how could he call it good?
© The Independent 2004

Back to the top
|