Jeremy Bell: Is Environmental Sin Possible?

[JimG]

Jeremy Bell: Is environmental sin possible? | The Catholic Weekly

 

[Pitcairn17]

An extremely troubling article. Author explicitly states that there “can be no sin against non-human creation.” He goes on to explicitly state that cruelty towards an animal is no sin against the animal. So in the author’s attempt to undermine Pope Francis ‘ apparent views on ecology, the author clearly states the principle that, say, torturing a dog is not a sin. I call rubbish on such a position.

 

[HumbleIOughtToBe]

You shall not kill.

“The World Health Organization estimates that 4.6 million people die each year from causes directly attributable to air pollution.”
Air pollution

Maybe God does not condemn based upon tragedy of the commons? Regardless, someone is being killed who still had a life to live.

 

[BornInMarch]

Genesis 1:31:

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

This verse seems important to this discussion.

 

[HarryStotle]

An extremely troubling article. Author explicitly states that there “can be no sin against non-human creation.” He goes on to explicitly state that cruelty towards an animal is no sin against the animal. So in the author’s attempt to undermine Pope Francis ‘ apparent views on ecology, the author clearly states the principle that, say, torturing a dog is not a sin. I call rubbish on such a position.

You appear to be distorting the article somewhat.

The author states…

Harsh or paradoxical as it may sound, cruelty towards an animal is not a sin against the animal.

Let me try to explicate the point he seems to be making.

If God is the absolute moral arbiter since he created all that exists, and morality derives from the manner in which he has created the universe, then what occurs in nature contrary to God’s will would be revealing in terms of what we would call moral good and moral evil.

The way in which a lion, tiger or some other large predator takes down a gazelle, deer or mountain sheep is very much akin to “torturing a dog,” no? I mean the lion will bite the neck of the animal, take it down and begin ripping it apart, probably well before it is dead.

It seems to me that if God has moral issues or considers it a “sin” to torture animals, why would he have set nature up in such a way that animal predators are constantly “torturing” each other?

The point being, that animals are not moral agents very likely because they do not have fully conscious awareness of what is happening to them. Sure they respond to their environment, but even computers can do that. They might even have something akin to emotional responses, but that hardly entails consciousness or a fully fledged awareness of what is happening to them.

If you want to insist that they do, then you are going to have to reconcile that belief with the fact that God appears to sanction such grisly torturous behaviour in nature with full approval. So if animals can do it to each other, why can’t humans?

I would suggest that humans should not precisely because such behaviour impacts us as humans, rather than for the impact it has on animals. It makes us less than human to behave in that cruel and callous way towards animals.

It isn’t because animals suffer torture in a completely human sense, that torturing them is bad. Rather it is that torturing animals is a sign of degeneracy in humans who do such things.

That is what the author means by “Harsh or paradoxical as it may sound, cruelty towards an animal is not a sin against the animal.” He means, and stated directly…

Cruelty to animals is, moreover, “contrary to human dignity”.

In short, according to the Catechism, it is for God’s sake and for our own that we should practice kindness to animals.

You might want to read this book before getting too carried away by sensibilities.

https://www.amazon.com/Nature-Red-Tooth-Claw-Suffering/dp/0199237271

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

I can’t understand how, just because this pope (and I think that’s the biggest thing about it - it’s Pope Francis), words something in modern language it’s suddenly new teaching. It’s been the thought and belief of the Church for centuries that we have an obligation to care for Creation and failure to do so can be sinful.

 

[Bird_lover]

I can think of one action many male animals have done that is not condoned by God as an action for humans to do: homosexual acts. Just because animals do it does not mean we are free to do it too.

 

[Bird_lover]

Sometimes these things need reiteration.

Think about Satan: the Church has been teaching about him and his minions for millenia, but we can’t let the message and warning regarding him fall by the wayside just because the Church has spoken about him before.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

“Ecological sin” can directly be traced to greed — insisting on owing more and more stuff.

However, pinning down precisely what the sin is and who is guilty is harder.
Am I wrong for buying two dresses when I only need one? Should I have bought them retail when a thrift shop has the same dresses in stock (thereby cutting down on carbon footprint)? Can I run through the drive through for an ice coffe (using a disposable cup and lid and straw) when I have ice coffee at home? Is this a mortal sin or venial sin?

 

[HarryStotle]

I can think of one action many male animals have done that is not condoned by God as an action for humans to do: homosexual acts. Just because animals do it does not mean we are free to do it too.

That would be my point, though.

Let’s break it down just a bit.

1. Animals kill/tear apart other animals - as a normative part of the natural order set up by God.
2. Human beings are not permitted to kill/tear apart other human beings – as part of the normative moral order set up by God.
3. What occurs in the natural order is not directly applicable to the human moral order.
4. There is no direct moral implication from the natural order to the human moral order, nor from the human moral order to the natural order.
5. Animals do not have the same moral standing as human beings, if they did, the moral rules that apply to human beings would apply ceteris paribus to animals.
   Therefore, the morality of killing/tearing apart of animals by human beings CANNOT be argued from a moral standpoint that treats animals as if they have the same moral standing as human beings.

Your point…

1. Animals sometimes engage in homosexual behaviour. Note: Such behaviour is not a normative part of the natural order set up by God, it is an atypical response triggered by overpopulation or social stress.
2. Human beings are not permitted to engage in homosexual behaviour with other human beings – as part of the normative moral order set up by God…
3. What occurs in the natural order is not directly applicable to the human moral order.
4. There is no direct moral implication from the natural order to the human moral order, nor from the human moral order to the natural order.
5. Animals do not have the same moral standing as human beings, if they did, the moral rules that apply to human beings would apply ceteris paribus to animals.
   Therefore, that homosexual behaviour is wrong in animals CANNOT be argued from a moral standpoint that treats animals as if they have the same moral standing as human beings.

 

[HarryStotle]

I can’t understand how, just because this pope (and I think that’s the biggest thing about it - it’s Pope Francis), words something in modern language it’s suddenly new teaching. It’s been the thought and belief of the Church for centuries that we have an obligation to care for Creation and failure to do so can be sinful.

The problem is that an “obligation to care for creation” can run smack against the obligation we have as human beings to care for human beings.

We were commanded by God at the very beginning of Genesis to "“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

Given the subtlety of coordinating between those two commands it isn’t obvious what an “obligation to care for creation” looks like when human beings are also commanded to flourish using the bounty of nature. Are harvesting the fruits of the earth, hunting game, tilling the land, etc., all “failures” to care for creation?

Should nature be left in a pristine state and human beings merely eradicated? Certainly, the extinction of human beings would resolve the tension between the two, if we presume a bifurcation between nature and humanity.

However, if human beings are considered to be part of the natural order, then human flourishing is essential to the care for creation.

Birds and animals use objects and resources from the environment – birds build nests with found items, beavers cut down trees to dam rivers. Humans certainly do such things on a larger scale, but that would seem necessary for human flourishing.

I wouldn’t just assume every kind of resource gathering the humans engage in – mining, foresting, hydroelectric projects, etc., are bad BECAUSE humans do them.

Some environmental activists do take that position, though.

It isn’t very clear at all what “care for creation” looks like, although clearly polluting of air and water, applying dangerous chemicals to land, and not carrying out proper land rehabilitation after mining or drilling operations would be not caring for creation.

What about building cities out of concrete, steel and glass? Is that caring for creation in your books? Seems to completely overhaul nature, no?

 

[Rhubarb]

I can’t sin against a non-human creation? So I can burn down my neighbor’s house with him in it. I didn’t touch him… I just touched the house. With fire.

I think this shows the fallacy. Harming the environment ipso facto harms people.

 

[HarryStotle]

I can’t sin against a non-human creation? So I can burn down my neighbor’s house with him in it. I didn’t touch him… I just touched the house. With fire.

I think this shows the fallacy. Harming the environment ipso facto harms people.

Your logic vis a vis “the fallacy” is clouded. If you burn down you neighbor’s house with him in it, you are clearly going to harm him. If your neighbor wasn’t at home you are still harming his well-being by destroying his home. The value of the house is determined by its value to your neighbor.

Harming the environment is an open question, and a loaded one, since you have already defined harm to the environment by the harm done to people, ipso facto.

If “Harming the environment ipso facto harms people,” then sin against a non-human creation is always, according to you, going to be sin against people. In that case, it isn’t “non-human creation” at all, since humans are always involved.

Ergo, it would be impossible to sin against “non-human creation” because such a thing does not exist.

Does killing a deer cause harm to the environment, necessarily? Any harm to people?

The problem, I would guess is with your notion of harm.

 

[Rhubarb]

Your logic vis a vis “the fallacy” is clouded. If you burn down you neighbor’s house with him in it, you are clearly going to harm him. If your neighbor wasn’t at home you are still harming his well-being by destroying his home. The value of the house is determined by its value to your neighbor.

Substitute “house” for Earth. It’s very rare that any given person isn’t “at Earth”. The house is analogous to the earth/environment. Our neighbor is analogous to everyone within the environment or on the earth (depending on scale of course).

Harming the environment is an open question, and a loaded one, since you have already defined harm to the environment by the harm done to people, ipso facto.

I did not define harm to the environment as harm to people. I gave an example through analogy how harm to the environment does harm people. These are different things. For example, I’m sure you’re aware of the PG&E-Hinkley affair. PG&E harmed the environment by neglecting water pits that contaminated the drinking water of Hinkley, which hurt or killed many.

If “Harming the environment ipso facto harms people,” then sin against a non-human creation is always, according to you, going to be sin against people. In that case, it isn’t “non-human creation” at all, since humans are always involved.

Ergo, it would be impossible to sin against “non-human creation” because such a thing does not exist.

This makes absolutely no sense. Saying “harm to the environment harms people” doesn’t equate the environment to people. Regardless you misread me, I was not reducing harm to the environment to harm to people.

Does killing a deer cause harm to the environment, necessarily? Any harm to people?

No, probably not. An individual deer isn’t the environment.
A population of deer certainly can play an integral part of an ecosystem, and threatening the population might might constitute a harm to the environment. I’m not a biologist so I don’t know if there are any deer populations like this, but, I know biologists have indicated several species that are integral to an entire ecosystem.

The problem, I would guess is with your notion of harm.

Uh, sure. Any discussion about harm will involve fighting over what constitutes a harm. I think there are plenty of examples of harms to the environment being the cause of harms to people.

 

[Nigel7]

He goes on to explicitly state that cruelty towards an animal is no sin against the animal. So in the author’s attempt to undermine Pope Francis ‘ apparent views on ecology, the author clearly states the principle that, say, torturing a dog is not a sin. I call rubbish on such a position.

You can’t sin against an animal. You can offend GOD by torturing animals – thereby sinning against GOD, but you aren’t “sinning against the animal”.

 

[Freddy]

Harming the environment is an open question, and a loaded one, since you have already defined harm to the environment by the harm done to people, ipso facto.

I think we can be a little more specific perhaps to clear any confusion.

Cutting down a single tree in the middle of an overgrown forest is not going to cause a problem. Cutting down all the trees in tbe Amazon basin will have a detrimental effect on the environment to the extent that it would be harmful to people.

I think that most people describing the willfull destruction of the environment to that extent as a sin would be correct.

 

[poche]

When Saddam Hussein set off all those oil wells as his army retreated, that polution could be considered an environmental sin.

 

[JanR]

And, that’s the key, right there. We are told to be good stewards of our planet and everything on it. That should suffice. Why all this redundancy?

 

[melonhead]

When Saddam Hussein set off all those oil wells as his army retreated, that polution could be considered an environmental sin.

And don’t forget damming the rivers to destroy the marshes in the southern part of the country. I read a great article a month or two back about the restoration efforts underway there.

Still, I disagree about sinning against the environment. We sin against God by knowingly destroying the environment, and against people (and thereby against God) by damaging the environment in a way that harms others.

 

[JanR]

Over a billion wild birds have had their populations depleted due to habitat destruction, mainly deforestation and over development of what was once open grasslands and vacant, brushy lots.

When I was a kid in the early 1960s, we lived in a largely rural area with lots of brushy open spaces and only a few houses here and there.

I recall one day when I was in our yard with my binoculars, and I heard the sweetest, most bubbly melody from our TV antenna, loud enough for the whole neighborhood to hear. I trained my binoculars on the colorful bird perched on the wire, singing its heart out, and it was a Western Meadowlark.

They nest on the ground in tall grasses and scrubby, brush areas, and our environment at that time was perfect for that. He obviously had a nest close by, though well hidden so it remained undisturbed.

Today, that same area is wall-to-wall houses, crammed in so close together that the only space left is vertical, and they are nearly all two- or three-stories high in order to have any view, at all.

Every bit of that open space is gone, and so are the Meadowlarks.

This is only one example of habitat degradation, in this case, total destruction.

When my family first moved there, we could look right out of our huge picture window in the living room and see the Pacific Ocean only a few blocks away. Our house and most of the others was only a single story. Now, one can’t see anything from the ground floor except their neighbor’s exterior walls.

Something has got to give. This is UNsustainable!