Morally justifiable pain, suffering and torture

[OTavern]

Oops. I overlooked this sentence. You did not talk about self-awareness or consciousness before. At best only the highests animals have some form of rudimentary self-consciousness.

However that is not the point: you said that it is not proven that animals have awareness of their pain. Not one word was uttered about the awareness of self. That is a whole different ballgame

Apparently, you have been missing my point all along. I thought we were in the same game when you began to mention the idea of pain. Self-awareness is critical. If there is no conscious being to “witness” or suffer the pain, the mere presence of pain, if that is even possible without a conscious being, means some “one” (in the sense of self-conscious identity) is suffering.

The presence of an identity or conscious being is key to whether it is at all meaningful to talk about gratuitous pain. Exactly who or what is conscious of the pain an animal suffers if it has no self-awareness? There must be a “self” there to “bear” the pain if animals do have awareness of pain. Awareness of self must precede awareness of pain, because only a “self” can “suffer” pain. Think of yourself, unconscious. Can you be said to “suffer” pain in that state?

Take a more concrete example - light. Consciously aware beings like humans are “aware” of seeing different colours of light because our brains “create” the sensory phenomena we refer to as colours. Colours may not even “exist” in nature. We are only “aware” of colours because our brain “manufactures” the colours in our mind when certain nerves in the retina are stimulated in particular ways. We are consciously “aware” of colours because we have consciousness. Without the state of “awareness” we could not be “aware” of colours. If we were not “self-aware,” i.e., conscious, we could not experience colours. The mere fact that we can be conscious of our experiences means we are capable of experiencing colours.

An animal that is not “consciously aware” cannot “experience” colours. It’s brain may receive signals, through its retina from different wavelengths of light and the animal may respond to these different stimuli, but that does not mean the animal actually “experiences” colours. Sure its brain may detect different wavelengths, but that is not the same as consciously experiencing colours, which is a sensory phenomenon.

The sensory phenomena only needs to be manufactured in a brain that has conscious awareness. If the being is not conscious there is no need for the brain to create sensory phenomena such as colours. Why bother? It would be much more efficient merely to send the signal directly to the appropriate response mechanisms. There is no need to create sensory phenomena like colours or pain if there is no “observer” there to experience them.

It would not be (name removed by moderator)ut → observor → response. Why bother?
Why make a colour “movie” in the brain if there is no one there to watch it? (name removed by moderator)ut → Output is all that is required.

Same with pain. Nerves are stimulated in certain ways when an animal is injured, but pain is a phenomenon which only can happen to a being that is conscious of its existence. If it is not conscious of existing it cannot be conscious of anything else, including pain. Self-awareness is necessary for pain awareness and pain is only possible to a being that is aware of itself experiencing pain.

Therefore, if you believe that, “awareness of self… is a whole different ballgame,” I suspect you have a mistaken view of pain. Being injured, having neural “pain” receptors stimulated and responding to these by flight, attack or whimpering are not the same as “experiencing pain,” which is only possible to a conscious being, one that is aware of its existence and therefore aware of its pain. It doesn’t make sense to say you have pain but aren’t “aware” of it. You need continued self-awareness through time to be aware of anything, including pain. That is the whole ballgame!

 

[OTavern]

Philosopical skepticism is a kindergarten exercise, readily refuted by Rand’s idea of the “stolen concept”. Your statement that “all we have are human perceptions which could be in error” is therefore itself a human perception and could, therefore, be in error. It’s like the statement, “there is no absolute truth”.

There is an enormous difference between claiming there is “absolute truth” and claiming to actually be in possession of it. I am certain there is absolute truth, but I am equally certain that my concepts about most things do not adequately portray that truth.

Take a very clear “objective” truth such as, “New York is a city.” This is clearly true. The objective “place” called New York fits the definition of “city.” No one would argue with the statement.

However, what exactly is “New York?” Is it the buildings? Is it the people? Does it include the rats in the sewers? Does it include every cat in every alley? Is the broken window on the third floor of my apartment included in the definition? What about the burned out lightbulb on the marquee on building X on the corner of this street and that avenue? Is that a part of what makes New York, New York? Where does the definition begin and end? Does it include the feelings of ecstasy, pride, joy, humiliation, fear and courage experienced by its inhabitants? Where does the concept end?

Seemingly “absolute” reality has a way of quickly becoming indefinite and nebulous. Does that mean I am advocating philosophical skepticism? No. It means there is no doubt that absolute realities exist, its just when we try to “encapsulate” them in language or symbols, we quickly see how inadequate our language and conceptualization attempts are to really hold the entire reality. Reality is far deeper and mysteriously incomprehensible than we can know, but that is precisely what makes “knowledge” so elusive and captivating at the same time.

We can know objective reality and can understand the objective reality of concepts such as justice, mercy, love, and so on.

I would qualify that by saying we can “begin” to know objective reality, but come nowhere near capturing and holding it in its entirety in our concepts. Concepts are only ways of defining reality. They represent the reality but are not the reality itself.

You still can’t use a human conception to attempt to say something about God, and then when someone refutes you on that and shows God is not compatible with that conception say, oh well, it’s only a human conception and not applicable to God. If it wasn’t applicable to God, you shouldn’t have used it to describe God in the first place.

The same could be said for the development of scientific thought. Historically, scientists have continually proposed theories to try to explain events around us, and just as chronically, other scientists refuted those theories. Does that mean scientists shouldn’t have proposed theories to describe the world in the first place because they have been “proven” to have erred?

Why can people not conjecture when it comes to God, just like scientists theorize about the world?

Perhaps what you are complaining about are people who claim with certainty to “know” God and then find out they were off the mark. Agreed. However, this applies to any endeavor and it shouldn’t stop us from trying to find the “truth,” especially when our “concept” of the truth is precisely what stops us from seeing the reality because it presents a captivating, but “false” view.

 

[ateista]

It’s necessary for medical research. God places higher value on human life than those of animals.

No, it is not “necessary” for medical research either. It may be a “shortcut”, but the same research could be performed by human volunteers. By your reasoning, is it also acceptable for cosmetological research?

I am aware that human life is more valuable (to us, humans) than animal life. The point is this: is it morally justifyable to expose animals to such pain, or is it merely just a “necessary evil”, when we use this shortcut?

And if it is morally acceptable to use animals for such research, how is it assured, that the research animals are exposed to the absolute minimum amount of pain, and not even an iota more? Don’t forget that the “necessary” amount of pain is a precise amount, and even a miniscule raise of pain is already morally unacceptable.

 

[ateista]

If no one can justify, and I’ll assume these concepts are pretty much universal, all suffering, pain and torture, that is proof God doesn’t exist. I’m not sure that is logical.

Not “all” suffering, pain and torture… only the ones that cannot be justified. The point is very delicate.

Assume that a father needs to discipline his child in order to teach him something important, something that will be very useful for the child later.

Naturally, such discipline may be painful for the child, but this pain is essential in the teaching process. So far, there is no problem.

The problem is as follows: the amount of pain that is necessary is a precise amount. Should the father administer a little bit less pain, and it would not be a sufficient teaching amount. If the father adminisiters a little bit more pain, than the “extra” amount is not “necessary”.

Now, obviously, the father is unaware of the precise amount that should be done… however God is supposed to be. If God does not interfere, then he allows unnecessary pain. If God interferes, then he “tinkers” with the father’s free will. Allegedly God never interferes with “free will”. Therefore God allows unnecessary pain.

Therefore there is unnecessary pain allowed by God.

 

[ateista]

Apparently, you have been missing my point all along.

Obviously. But you never mentioned “self-awareness” before, only “awareness” - and they are not the same. So we must share the blaim.

In my post to you #150 I asked you a few specific questions, which you may have overlooked. Please review it, and let me know what you think.

Let me ask one more thing. How do you know that some other human being is self-aware? In your post you said that we are unable to look into the neural network of an animal and therefore we are unable to “figure out” of its level of awareness. We cannot do it with another human being either.

For that matter, we, humans are not “fully” self-aware either. We are not consciously aware of the digestive process on our stomach or bowels (unless something goes wrong with them). We are not consciously aware of the oxigen molecules replenishing our bloodstream (unless we are unable to breathe). Therefore, obviously we are not **fully **self-aware.

Still, I don’t think that you deny that we experience pain in a meaningful fashion. So a limited self-awareness is sufficient to be able to experience pain. How do you know that the animals’ level of self-awareness is not sufficient to “truly” experience pain either?

Just like us, animals react to the “malfunction” of their intestines, and they exhibit similar reactions to these malfunctions. From these signs I deduce that they experience pain, just like we do. What specific reasons do you have to deny this (if you do, of course)?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

No, it is not “necessary” for medical research either. It may be a “shortcut”, but the same research could be performed by human volunteers. By your reasoning, is it also acceptable for cosmetological research?

I am aware that human life is more valuable (to us, humans) than animal life. The point is this: is it morally justifyable to expose animals to such pain, or is it merely just a “necessary evil”, when we use this shortcut?

Yes, it is morally justifiable to expose animals to what you consider “mor than necessary” pain because that is what animals are FOR.

They are specifically created for our use. You consider that not true, which is fine, in which case I would suggest you find a way to live utterly away from (at least) western civilization as you are now getting the benefits of aforesaid pain of animals while decrying the reason for those benefits.

Pick one. Either live by your principles and get the heck out of that which sustains you by the proper use of animals, or accept reality as given us by God.

And if it is morally acceptable to use animals for such research, how is it assured, that the research animals are exposed to the absolute minimum amount of pain, and not even an iota more? Don’t forget that the “necessary” amount of pain is a precise amount, and even a miniscule raise of pain is already morally unacceptable.

Animals are not persons. As long as the benefit from their pain, which will (somehow mysteriously) be “repaid” to them by God as He is all-loving and all-merciful, is great enough they can be used as we see fit.

God WILL reward sadistic persons who inflict unjustified pain on persons, animals and the environment. Period.

It is our job to come to know what is justified and what is unjustified. To conflate animals with persons is the overeaction of the hypersensitive well intentioned (perhaps) un-Godly.

 

[Benadam]

"all"[/B]

suffering, pain and torture… only the ones that cannot be justified. The point is very delicate.

It is all because what is not included has already found it’s object in some undefined source adopted for this discussion as just. Which leads to the question ’ what source of justice is that line drawn?’

Now, obviously, the father is unaware of the precise amount that should be done… however God is supposed to be. If God does not interfere, then he allows unnecessary pain. If God interferes, then he “tinkers” with the father’s free will. Allegedly God never interferes with “free will”. Therefore God allows unnecessary pain.

Therefore there is unnecessary pain allowed by God

.
The only resolution to this for me if I exclude the theology surrounding the belief in the fall of man and our previous state of being in original innocense is; God would have to have endowed self determined creatures with omniscience. Or at least the knowledge of the precise amount of pain necessary for dicipline.

Necessity is relative isn’t it? What I need what you need. Pain without good purpose is a matter that requires it’s end to be known and judged.

To what end is pain felt? The question posited this way leads to the deeper questions that must be answered to resolve the issue of morally justifying pain and suffering. For instance, to what end is life lived and thereby justifiable?

 

[OTavern]

Obviously. But you never mentioned “self-awareness” before, only “awareness” - and they are not the same. So we must share the blaim.

I am still confused by the distinction you want to make between awareness and self-awareness. I see no distinction; which is why I assumed we were including both. If a being is truly aware of “being” it must also be self-aware when it turns its awareness onto the simple fact that it is “aware of being aware.” The “state of being aware” implies that such a being would thereby be aware of its “being aware,” hence it would be self-conscious.

In my post to you #150 I asked you a few specific questions, which you may have overlooked. Please review it, and let me know what you think.

I did miss that post and have now read it. The gist of your post seems similar to the following quote:

Let me ask one more thing. How do you know that some other human being is self-aware? In your post you said that we are unable to look into the neural network of an animal and therefore we are unable to “figure out” of its level of awareness. We cannot do it with another human being either.

The answer is that the world around us is a very complex system, so our understanding of the world has to be based upon more than mere isolated beliefs. Our understanding must fit within a belief system which is self-consistent, explanatory in the most comprehensive fashion and be capable of addressing new inquiry. Our beliefs can only make sense within such a larger view.

Although we cannot know for certain if another being has awareness, we can have very clear reasons for believing it.

Just like us, animals react to the “malfunction” of their intestines, and they exhibit similar reactions to these malfunctions. From these signs I deduce that they experience pain, just like we do. What specific reasons do you have to deny this (if you do, of course)?

It is apparently you who have a huge problem if you allow that animals are conscious in the same way that humans are. If animals are so capable, all ethical rules must apply to them as they do to humans. It would be wrong to kill animals in the same way that it is wrong to kill humans because self-awareness is the key element that makes any being morally responsible.

In the end, it seems to me, that self-consciousness is the precise reason why humans can be held to be ethically responsible and the reason why it is wrong to “murder” [in the sense of killing without just cause] human beings.

I am working on a more extensive argument to support my point above and the premises below, but basically the argument would be something like:

1. Free will requires consciousness.
2. Ethical status in terms of inalienable right to life depends upon autonomous conscious identity and hence free will.
3. If animals have consciousness, then they must be accorded the same right to life (and protection from being killed without just cause) as human beings.
4. God, being the all-knowing Creator of the universe, clearly distinguishes between murdering humans (prohibits) and murdering animals (allows with qualifications).
5. Therefore God is thereby making it clear that animals do not have consciousness. He wouldn’t allow “predator - prey” paradigms in the animal world if animals were indeed conscious, since this would be tantamount to unjustified killing of humans and very cruel, at least on the surface…

Obviously, this argument does not convince you, being an atheist, but anyone who is a theist may find it interesting.

 

[Benadam]

An ability that would distinguish awareness of self would be to imagine a future that doesn’t include the self. Animals don’t exibit behaviour that makes that ability obvious.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

No, it is not “necessary” for medical research either. It may be a “shortcut”, but the same research could be performed by human volunteers. By your reasoning, is it also acceptable for cosmetological research?

I am aware that human life is more valuable (to us, humans) than animal life. The point is this: is it morally justifyable to expose animals to such pain, or is it merely just a “necessary evil”, when we use this shortcut?

And if it is morally acceptable to use animals for such research, how is it assured, that the research animals are exposed to the absolute minimum amount of pain, and not even an iota more? Don’t forget that the “necessary” amount of pain is a precise amount, and even a miniscule raise of pain is already morally unacceptable.

I place the value of human life higher than those of animals—just as God said.

 

[ateista]

I am still confused by the distinction you want to make between awareness and self-awareness. I see no distinction; which is why I assumed we were including both. If a being is truly aware of “being” it must also be self-aware when it turns its awareness onto the simple fact that it is “aware of being aware.” The “state of being aware” implies that such a being would thereby be aware of its “being aware,” hence it would be self-conscious.

Yes, you described self-consciousness or self-awareness clearly and precisely. To be self-aware is a high level of abstraction, to understand that “I” and “not-I” are not the same. Such high level of abstraction is not observed in animals - though in the case of a few of the higher apes the “jury is still out”. It is still possible that they have some level of abstraction.

I understand “awareness” differently. No abstraction is needed, merely a correctly working brain, which properly perceives and processes the “incoming” data. The actual pain/pleasure processing mechanism is pretty much the same in humans and animals.

The answer is that the world around us is a very complex system, so our understanding of the world has to be based upon more than mere isolated beliefs. Our understanding must fit within a belief system which is self-consistent, explanatory in the most comprehensive fashion and be capable of addressing new inquiry. Our beliefs can only make sense within such a larger view.

This is very true, though I am not sure how it pertains to the question I presented.

Although we cannot know for certain if another being has awareness, we can have very clear reasons for believing it.

Excellent. Now, given that the animals clearly exhibit the same behavior as humans do, what would be a reason to doubt that they actually experience pain and not just “simulate it”?

It is apparently you who have a huge problem if you allow that animals are conscious in the same way that humans are.

But I don’t think so. The level of abstraction in animals is much lower - as we currently understand it.

If animals are so capable, all ethical rules must apply to them as they do to humans. It would be wrong to kill animals in the same way that it is wrong to kill humans because self-awareness is the key element that makes any being morally responsible.

Right. However, we cannot reasonably deny that the animals do perceive pain, and even the legal system acknowledges that when we consider the laws against tortuting the animals. (Not that we ponder the legal system here…)

In the end, it seems to me, that self-consciousness is the precise reason why humans can be held to be ethically responsible and the reason why it is wrong to “murder” [in the sense of killing without just cause] human beings.

I agree with this one, too. But the point is that we are unable to decide if another being has the level of abstraction of having self-awareness. We must go by the “duck-principle”. As a matter of fact, a freshly born infant does not have any level of abstraction. Their brain is not sufficiently developed to differentiate between the “I” and “not-I”. Yet we hold that it is equally wrong to needlessly hurt a baby, even though it has no self-awareness.

I am working on a more extensive argument to support my point above and the premises below, but basically the argument would be something like:

1. Free will requires consciousness.
2. Ethical status in terms of inalienable right to life depends upon autonomous conscious identity and hence free will.
3. If animals have consciousness, then they must be accorded the same right to life (and protection from being killed without just cause) as human beings.
4. God, being the all-knowing Creator of the universe, clearly distinguishes between murdering humans (prohibits) and murdering animals (allows with qualifications).
5. Therefore God is thereby making it clear that animals do not have consciousness. He wouldn’t allow “predator - prey” paradigms in the animal world if animals were indeed conscious, since this would be tantamount to unjustified killing of humans and very cruel, at least on the surface…

Obviously, this argument does not convince you, being an atheist, but anyone who is a theist may find it interesting.

It will be interesting for me, too. But let me offer one criticism right off the bat. From your wording it is clear to me that you use “consciousness” as I would use “self-consciousness”. Your first premise “Free will requires consciousness” is not true. Animals clearly exhibit choices. Lab rats will navigate mazes in increasingly methodical fashion, their choices become less and less random as they learn. Just like humans! Yet, those lab rats do not seem to have “self-awareness”. Therefore to have free will (not that I place such a high value on free will as theists do) it is not necessary to have full self-awareness.

 

[ateista]

It is all because what is not included has already found it’s object in some undefined source adopted for this discussion as just. Which leads to the question ’ what source of justice is that line drawn?’

I am not sure what you mean. We can all agree that in some cases, some level of pain can be justified. because it is necessary to obtain greater goods. At least in this world, though I can imagine another logically possible world, where there is no need for pain at all.

The only resolution to this for me if I exclude the theology surrounding the belief in the fall of man and our previous state of being in original innocense is; God would have to have endowed self determined creatures with omniscience. Or at least the knowledge of the precise amount of pain necessary for dicipline.

These two (onmiscience and the precise amount of pain) are not the same. The second one is infinitely less amount of knowledge. Moreover, it is not even necessary that this knowledge be explicit and deliberative. We could be “endowed” with an instinct to stop precisely when the necessary amount of pain is administered.

The point is this: we either have free will (and God does not tinker with it) and then there will be disproportionate amount of pain (maybe less, maybe more then optimal) and that contradicts the assumption that God only allows the necessary amount of pain.

Or in each and every case the pain is exactly the amount that is necessary to achieve a specific “greater good”, but since we are unable to discern it (and in the case of natural disasters the pain is simply random), and then God (who is supposed to be omniscient) must interfere to stop the process at the precise amount of pain which is necessary.

It is impossible to hold that these two requirements are fulfilled simultaneously. They are clearly contradictory.

An ability that would distinguish awareness of self would be to imagine a future that doesn’t include the self. Animals don’t exibit behaviour that makes that ability obvious.

Do babies have that ability?

 

[ateista]

Yes, it is morally justifiable to expose animals to what you consider “mor than necessary” pain because that is what animals are FOR.

Prove that.

Pick one. Either live by your principles and get the heck out of that which sustains you by the proper use of animals, or accept reality as given us by God.

How nice of you. Yes, there is unnecessary pain"out there". We all benefit from it. That does not make it morally justifyable.

Animals are not persons. As long as the benefit from their pain, which will (somehow mysteriously) be “repaid” to them by God as He is all-loving and all-merciful, is great enough they can be used as we see fit.

This goes against Catholic theology. Animals have no “afterlife”.

God WILL reward sadistic persons who inflict unjustified pain on persons, animals and the environment. Period.

Even if it were so, it would not justify the pain retroactively.

If a father beats up his child for no reason, punishing him “later” will not undo or lessen the pain the child had to suffer. Also if the mother would give the child an expensive present as a “compensation” for the pain, it would not make the pain disappear.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

In a world where unborn babies are being murdered and stupid government ‘officials’ won’t allow us to drill our own oil under the guise of protecting some polar bears, I can’t worry about animal ‘rights.’

 

[Ted_in_Charlott]

However, no Catholic will argue that animals have an afterlife.

I am more convinced that animals will be in heaven than most people. I’ve never had a dog or a cat or a bird or a rat hit me or beat me or belittle me or steal from me. I’ve never had an animal lie to me or about me or curse me or spread rumors about me. I’ve never seen an animal go around and gossip or curse God or kill anything for sport. Ever seen an animal go out of it’s way to be mean and hateful? Ever seen a dog go out and get drunk and cause an accident to kill your sister? Ever seen an animal hate another one just because it was a different religion or color or socio-economic class?

Maybe God did give us animals so we would see His Morality in Creation.

 

[traillius]

One could argue that animals have souls, and that could be partially true ( ask any dog owner including myself ). However, despite what fairy tales some make up, that animal soul does not continue after death, and is not immortal. There can be no recompense for ill treatment of animals during life, because they exist only for this life. Punishment may come for some who baselessly and frivolously abuse animals for non-humanitarian reasons. But that won’t console an animal, whether the animal lives or is dead. While it lives, an animal cannot grasp an abstract concept like revenge or retribution, and it cannot after death, because its soul has ceased to exist.

 

[minkymurph]

I would like to say something in relation to this thread. I am not a vegetarian, I eat meat and I don’t believe it is morally wrong to do so. My Father worked in an abotoir for years and his my Uncle always told me he believed it had a psychological effect on him and he may well have been right. I myself worked in clinical research for 18 years and we used animals and I can recall a discussion on television regarding animal research. One person said that in years to come, we will look back in horror on animal research. I think they may well be right. Consider in victorian times woman who suffered from no more than post-natal depression where given lobotomy’s against their will as the medical profession believed it to be in their best interests. I can still remember so many animals that where used. They where almost like my pets. I even took three rats that had been used for a nutrional study home with me when the study was over and kept them as pets. They eventually died and when one of them was gasping her last, the only way I had to end her suffering was to break her neck. I cried for about ten minutes with a rat in my arms before I could do the dirty deed. I believe animal research is becoming more and more uneccessary due to the development of other techniques and I applaud that. I really believed that what we where doing was for mankind’s good and so did a lot of others, but the attitudes of the those involved in research was not good as it was like the animals just didn’t matter. It was the publication, the MD, the PhD, but I am not being judgemental when I say that as I suppose you can’t afford yourself the luxury of thinking about it too much, you would go mad. It’s like soldiers in a war. If they thought of all the repercussions of pulling the trigger they would go mad. Many of them do. I have now taken a different career path and in September, I hope to enter teacher training, to teach religious studies and history, and am so much happier. In my study of history, we studied the rise of the Third Reich and I would say there was no alternative but to go to war against Hitler once he got into power. However, it was possible to prevent his rise to power, but those who had the power chose not to use it. I heard the story of a Priest who became involved in the plot to kill Hitler. He wrote a journal and in it he said how it troubled his conscience, whether he should get involved or not. In the end he decided he would he could save innocent lives and the live of Hitler in exchange for many of the innocent was justified. He got caught however, was put in a concentration camp and eventually executed for his efforts. In relation to the questionmorally justifiable pain, suffering and torture, I don’t have an answer. What I would say is that I believe all is a consequence of the fall, emphasizing man’s need for God and while we live in this world, we will always be presented with moral dilemhas that we really don’t have the answer to. Apologies for long post.

 

[ateista]

I am more convinced that animals will be in heaven than most people. I’ve never had a dog or a cat or a bird or a rat hit me or beat me or belittle me or steal from me. I’ve never had an animal lie to me or about me or curse me or spread rumors about me. I’ve never seen an animal go around and gossip or curse God or kill anything for sport. Ever seen an animal go out of it’s way to be mean and hateful? Ever seen a dog go out and get drunk and cause an accident to kill your sister? Ever seen an animal hate another one just because it was a different religion or color or socio-economic class?

Maybe God did give us animals so we would see His Morality in Creation.

Interesting observation, though it will not meet a whole lot of agreement. I have to bring up the example of some animals, “who” do not stop killing when they have enough food, but keep on killing… not many behave like that, though.

 

[ateista]

I would like to say something in relation to this thread. Apologies for long post.

Good post, I wish you would have used paragraphs to make it easier to read.

 

[traillius]

I am more convinced that animals will be in heaven than most people. I’ve never had a dog or a cat or a bird or a rat hit me or beat me or belittle me or steal from me. I’ve never had an animal lie to me or about me or curse me or spread rumors about me. I’ve never seen an animal go around and gossip or curse God or kill anything for sport. Ever seen an animal go out of it’s way to be mean and hateful? Ever seen a dog go out and get drunk and cause an accident to kill your sister? Ever seen an animal hate another one just because it was a different religion or color or socio-economic class?

Maybe God did give us animals so we would see His Morality in Creation.

You seem to have much anger in you. I will pray for mercy.
As far as animals in heaven, well I haven’t been there, So I can’t say for sure. But I do know this. Animals souls are not eternal. Therefore they can’t " go " anywhere.