Ethics of Fur

[4elise]

Then your parish priest needs to study up some more on Aquinas. Emotions are an embodiment of the rational appetite. Animals, having only a sensitive soul, do not have the element of Reason necessary for emotion.

An animal may have a passion, a sensitive embodiment, but not an emotion. Aquinas deemed this an estimative power shaped by instinct, not the cognitive power shaped by intellect.

I started to answer this post and found that I was sounding snarky and decided to erase what I wrote and start again. So I went looking for someone who said it better, especially because you are someone with a theology background - I would hope you would consider reading this article - scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Ramirez/FaithSeekingFood.html

“What capacities must a being have if we are to make it the proper object of moral concern?” believers should respond with “theos-rights.” As a result, all beings that possess theos-rights would be proper objects of moral concern. But this argument is not about humans only: God has rights over all of creation, and no Christian can doubt that animals are part of creation. Animals, then, must possess theos-rights; animals must be proper objects of moral concern and obligation. Like humans, “animals can be wronged because their creator can be wronged in his creation” (Linzey, 135).

 

[severus68]

Then your parish priest needs to study up some more on Aquinas. Emotions are an embodiment of the rational appetite. Animals, having only a sensitive soul, do not have the element of Reason necessary for emotion.

An animal may have a passion, a sensitive embodiment, but not an emotion. Aquinas deemed this an estimative power shaped by instinct, not the cognitive power shaped by intellect.

I am quite sure St Thomas of Aquinas was a good man and sincerely thought he was right. Anilmals do have and show emotions, whatever you would like to think. There have been many posts and links on this from e and others.

I was responding to someone else, perhaps you should not make comments on my parish priest who is not here to respond. He would be thoroughl amused I know, though.

 

[vz71]

I am quite sure St Thomas of Aquinas was a good man and sincerely thought he was right. Anilmals do have and show emotions, whatever you would like to think. There have been many posts and links on this from e and others.

Actually, no.

I made several points that you simply could not respond to.

How exactly do you know what is going on in an animals head?
You have no psychic abilities, yet you lay claim to knowing what an animal is thinking.

As I stated a while back, animals may or may not have emotions.
But these emotions are not in any way able to be translated into anything we would recognize. Assuming they exist at all. Because there is still the hefty problem of being able to tell a genuine emotional response from a learned behavior with nothing more behind it then a canned reaction to stimuli.
There is simply no common frame of reference.

 

[severus68]

Actually, no.

I made several points that you simply could not respond to.

How exactly do you know what is going on in an animals head?
You have no psychic abilities, yet you lay claim to knowing what an animal is thinking.

As I stated a while back, animals may or may not have emotions.
But these emotions are not in any way able to be translated into anything we would recognize. Assuming they exist at all. Because there is still the hefty problem of being able to tell a genuine emotional response from a learned behavior with nothing more behind it then a canned reaction to stimuli.
There is simply no common frame of reference.

I did repy and I even posted a link on an article on animal empathy. Others and I have done so this and a similar thread you are on.

 

[vz71]

How exactly do you know what is going on in an animals head?
…Because there is still the hefty problem of being able to tell a genuine emotional response from a learned behavior with nothing more behind it then a canned reaction to stimuli.
There is simply no common frame of reference.

I did repy and I even posted a link on an article on animal empathy. Others and I have done so this and a similar thread you are on.

And the answer to how exactly you know what is going on in an animals head is???

 

[Newbie2]

My definition of animal rights is: Animals have the right to run if they have legs, fly if they have wings, and swim if they have fins.

So then if they can do these things until we eat them, we’re respecting their rights.

 

[Brendan]

I am quite sure St Thomas of Aquinas was a good man and sincerely thought he was right. Anilmals do have and show emotions, whatever you would like to think. There have been many posts and links on this from e and others.

I was responding to someone else, perhaps you should not make comments on my parish priest who is not here to respond. He would be thoroughl amused I know, though.

Really, out of all of us, St. Thomas would know better what powers are attributes of what powers of the soul.

He is, after all, a Doctor of the Church, pretty much the highest ‘rank’ of theologian there can be.

And unless there is now some scientific evidence that animals have Rational souls.

 

[4elise]

So then if they can do these things until we eat them, we’re respecting their rights.

So following this - you would agree that there should be an end to factory farms:
michigan.sierraclub.org/issues/greatlakes/articles/cafofacts.html#industrial-sized

CAFO animals are confined at least 45 days or more per year in an area without vegetation.

 

[Brendan]

I started to answer this post and found that I was sounding snarky and decided to erase what I wrote and start again. So I went looking for someone who said it better, especially because you are someone with a theology background - I would hope you would consider reading this article - scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Ramirez/FaithSeekingFood.html

OK, lets take a look at this person’s premises and see what errors we find

(1’) If God made animals solely for human use, then God would care most about those animals that humans find most useful. An animal’s ontological worth would be equal to its usefulness to humans. However, consider Jesus’ words: “Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father” (Mat. 10:29). In response to this passage, Richard Bauckham, Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of St. Andrews, argues that "Jesus had selected a creature [the sparrow] which is valued very cheaply by humans …] on the basis of its limited usefulness to them. Even a creature which humans think so unimportant is important enough to God for it never to escape caring attention (42).

The logical flaw here is associating God’s Om(name removed by moderator)resence knowledge with ontological worth. God knows all things. He created the material ( not spiritual) soul of the sparrow and His knowledge of the sparrow keeps that sparrow in existance. God wills the sparrow to exist. But that is existance, not ontological worth. It is a logical error to associate the two.

Premise 2

As I mentioned before, Aquinas thought the most morally relevant feature is reason. Aquinas thought humanity should direct its moral attention only toward other rational beings; since animals are not rational, they don’t count. Yet, as philosopher Tom Regan points out, reason-based morality may exclude not just rocks, buildings, and animals, but also people whose abililty to reason is negligible, e.g., those with late stage Alzheimer’s disease (Regan, “Reply,” 140-143). There would be nothing fundamentally immoral, according to this moral rationalism, about torturing a nonrational person. If only rational beings were proper objects of moral concern, then torturing a person in late stage Alzheimer’s disease would be wrong only if it made one also want to torture a rational person. But should Christians accept this? Christians, and many others, would maintain that torturing a person with Alzheimer’s disease is just plain wrong.

Here the person is attempting to show that Reason is not the primary moral factor.

Humans are know to have Rational Souls for two reasons, 1. because Reason is a Divine attribute ( God IS knowledge), humans, alone of all material creatures, are created in the Likeness and Image of God. 2. Reason is necessary for moral action. An action must have formed intent, a knowledge of right and wrong as know by God. To say that animals have reasons, and therefore a rational soul, would also require than anumals may sin, and therefore need Baptism and Reconcillation.

On his point about “torturing a non Rational person”, that is actually a contradiction in terms. A Person is a Moral Actor, that is why we refer the the Trinity as Three Divine PERSONS.

Reason is a power of the soul, physical ailments, such as Alzheimers, impare the manifestation of Reason, but that is simply the manifestation of it, a person with Alzheimers still retains Reason, but simply lacks it’s faculties. the same is true for an infant. That is why we know with certatune that a fetus is a person, even in one cell.

I’m surprised that this person makes such clear logical errors in their premises. I was honestly shocked that a philosophy professor at a Catholic University would make such errors. Then I noted that this paper was written by a Junior, not a professor.

If I had submitted such a work to my seminary professors, I would have been lucky to get a ‘D’

 

[Brendan]

I also found this from the Council of Trent ( on the 5th Commandment)

The Prohibitory Part of this Commandment
Exceptions: The Killing Of Animals
With regard to the prohibitory part, it should first be taught what kinds of killing are not forbidden by this Commandment. It is not prohibited to kill animals; for God permits man to eat them, it is therefore lawful to kill them. When, says St. Augustine, we hear the words, “Thou shalt not kill, we do not understand this of the fruits of the earth, which are insensible, nor of irrational animals, which form no part of human society”.

 

[Marfran]

How exactly do you know what is going on in an animals head?
You have no psychic abilities, yet you lay claim to knowing what an animal is thinking.

Being kind to animals, or refraining from being cruel, or refraining from causing pain or suffering is about compassion and mercy. What goes on in an animals head is irrelevant to our act of mercy towards that animal. An animal feels physical pain, and can physically suffer–and for this reason we must consider our actions towards the animal.

 

[vz71]

What goes on in an animals head is irrelevant to our act of mercy towards that animal.

Quite right.
But it is very relevent when one decides to lay claim to animal emotions.

 

[Marfran]

Then your parish priest needs to study up some more on Aquinas. Emotions are an embodiment of the rational appetite. Animals, having only a sensitive soul, do not have the element of Reason necessary for emotion.

An animal may have a passion, a sensitive embodiment, but not an emotion. Aquinas deemed this an estimative power shaped by instinct, not the cognitive power shaped by intellect.

Actually *you *should study up on St. Thomas Aquinas. He definitely had his good qualities and insight, but some of his thoughts which have influenced the Catholic Church, are not even Christian and do not even have a Biblical basis. St. Thomas had a utilitarian view of animals based on the views of Aristotle. You might want to check out the works of theologian Andrew Linzey. He does a good job of examining the influence of St. Thomas Aquinas on the Catholic Church. You will notice that the Church is now recognizing and incorporating more of St. Francis and his thinking, his approach to stewardship of the earth and animals, into the Catechism, etc.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Actually *you *should study up on St. Thomas Aquinas. He definitely had his good qualities and insight, but some of his thoughts which have influenced the Catholic Church, are not even Christian and do not even have a Biblical basis. St. Thomas had a utilitarian view of animals based on the views of Aristotle. You might want to check out the works of theologian Andrew Linzey. He does a good job of examining the influence of St. Thomas Aquinas on the Catholic Church. You will notice that the Church is now recognizing and incorporating more of St. Francis and his thinking, his approach to stewardship of the earth and animals, into the Catechism, etc.

I looked him up…he isn’t a Catholic theolgian, he is Anglican. He might be extremely intelligent, but I would assume his ideas would conform with Anglican theology.

As for St. Francis and St. Thomas, I don’t believe they would argue much about theology.

 

[Newbie2]

So following this - you would agree that there should be an end to factory farms:
michigan.sierraclub.org/issues/greatlakes/articles/cafofacts.html#industrial-sized

Nope.

I don’t agree with the definition of animal rights put forth by Marfran.

 

[PeterMuz]

There’s this:

The difference is in how one interprets needlessly. I don’t need any animal products to survive, or for that matter thrive. I’m in great shape, am competitive in sports, have lots of energy to play with my kids, and can stay warm in the coldest MT winter without consuming animal products. I can also cook and eat tasty meals and spend far less on my food. So, I have no need for animal products. For me to buy meat then would be causing animals to suffer needlessly as I have no need.
Someone else may believe that they have a need to eat meat or wear animal products. So, they would see this differently, I suppose.

Okay, so I see and understand the quote from the Catechism. So that basically says you should not do what Michael Vick did. And you should not kill the animal for no reason. I think for food is a good reason.

But let me ask you and any of the other 3 or 4 people have been in on this conversation, do you own pets? That quote out of the Catechism says that you should not spend money on animals when it could go to the relief of human misery. How much money do you spend on pet food a year? You could be giving that to the poor!

 

[Marfran]

I looked him up…he isn’t a Catholic theolgian, he is Anglican. He might be extremely intelligent, but I would assume his ideas would conform with Anglican theology.

As for St. Francis and St. Thomas, I don’t believe they would argue much about theology.

Andrew Linzey is a Christian theologian, very respected by Catholic theologians, and well worth reading. The Catholic theologian, Deborah Jones wrote the book: School of Compassion. I haven’t finished reading it yet, probably because it is very deep and complex. Andrew Linzey’s work is a little easier to read and follow. Matthew Scully (a Catholic) wrote Dominion–and you will find him frequently quoting Andrew Linzey. There are many more resources that others have informed me of, but I can not recommend work that I am not familiar with. Again, Andrew Linzey is easy to read and to follow, but if you want to jump right in to Deborah Jones’ work–she is a Catholic theologian.

 

[vz71]

You might want to check out the works of theologian Andrew Linzey…

Aside from not being any real authority on the Catholic faith, the various books the man has authored lead me to believe he may not even be a good Anglican authority.

 

[PeterMuz]

And what are you interpreting “animal rights” to be? People seem to bristle at this term and I suspect it is because they do not undertstand it or misinterpret it. I am suggesting that if you are to have conversations here at CAF with Catholic animal people, vegans and/or vegetarians, that it woiuld be helpful to learn about their perspective, and you may be surprised once you review some Catholic writing on the matter.

There are animal welfarists, and then there are animal “rights” folks–and often the two overlap. My definition of animal rights is: Animals have the right to run if they have legs, fly if they have wings, and swim if they have fins.

***Catholic Concern for Animals ***is based in England. It has a chapter in the United States. mercifulJan, a CAF member, is in charge of the US chapter (I don’t know what her exact title is). You can reach her by PM here, or you can contact her through the web site. You can request a “free” copy of the publication that ***Catholic Concern for Animals puts out (4 times a year I think). With a $25.00 membership you will get all the publications for a year. There is also a lifetime membership available (I don’t remember the cost.) Bottom line: You can ***request a free publication.

A really good book that covers St. Francis is ***Vegetarian Christian Saints ***by Dr. Holly Roberts amazon.com/Vegetarian-Christian-Saints-Holly-Roberts/dp/0975484400/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255640836&sr=8-1 It covers the lives of not only St. Francis, but 149 other saints. St. Francis was considered to be a vegetarian for at least part of his life. (Very few of us are born vegetarians because of the culture in which we live. It is a choice that we make.) And TODAY things are very different, even from the times in which St. Francis lived. We have all sorts of new cruelties and new agri-business practices that cause animals to suffer.

OK–now back to the flying fur!!!

I think quote from the Catechism posted by your other vegan friend here is great.

2418.One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

You are giving animals the right to life. Don’t you think all you animal rights folks should focus on pro-life causes for people first. Its very disturbing to me that some/most animals rights people I’ve ever met spend more time fight for the right to life for a dog or a cow than for people.

 

[severus68]

Okay, so I see and understand the quote from the Catechism. So that basically says you should not do what Michael Vick did. And you should not kill the animal for no reason. I think for food is a good reason.

But let me ask you and any of the other 3 or 4 people have been in on this conversation, do you own pets? That quote out of the Catechism says that you should not spend money on animals when it could go to the relief of human misery. How much money do you spend on pet food a year? You could be giving that to the poor!

Do you really believe the Church really wants us to let our pets starve? Spending unncessary money like expensive jewelry on a dog who would not appreciate, want or need it may be consdered wrong. Did you ask the Pope to stop feeding his cat?

We try not to judge and would like to share a lifestyle we believe is best for us, the eniroment and the rest of God’s creation. May I in turn ask you how much you give to the poor every year. Do you eat luxurious food istead of givig the money spent o the poor. I do not think I have the right to ask you and am just making a point. We each in turn will answer to God on how we lived our lives.