The Intellect and Heartbreaking Animal Mourning Rituals

[Sair]

“But is this a difference of degree or of kind?” - well, that’s an important question. I would answer that it is a difference of kind, you would answer that it is a difference of degree. I would say that on one side we have the use of reason, while on the other side we do not.

Now the example of use of reason is a participation in a philosophical discussion. Why would it matter more than, let’s say, noticing a changed number of eggs, recognising similar textures, seeing “ultraviolet colour”, running fast, feeling pain and emotions, or many other things which (some) other animals can do? Well, there is a reason. If you do not see it, try to persuade some cat or dog not to eat meat.

That leads to another point. At the first sight it might look that it is more compassionate to other animals to assume that they have rights and are equal (or “semi-equal”) to humans. But if you make this assumption, how will you avoid ending up forced to condemn cat eating a mouse or a wolf eating a bunny about as strongly, as a human murdering another human? And I see little compassion to wolfs and cats in that… Are they supposed to starve to death instead?

And if the difference between reason (that other animals lack) and “neural abilities” (that they have) is a difference of kind and not of degree, the rest of your argument seems to collapse.

Most humans, unless they are committed vegetarians, are unable to refrain from the desire (or, perhaps, the need) to eat animal protein. I know some people who really struggle with the conflict between their deeply-ingrained desire for meat and their belief that a vegan diet is the ethical ideal.

I don’t believe that eating other animals is evil, but by the same token, I don’t believe that ritual cannibalism is evil either. It’s a religious belief that has been (and still is, by some remote tribal societies) held as seriously as any Christian or other monotheistic belief. I think it is actually possible to respect other animals and still eat them - provided they are raised with a care for their innate requirements, and slaughtered with the absolute minimum of stress. This is why I opt for free-range and organic animal products (and thus eat less of them than is apparently standard in the West, because the cost of producing them is greater…but for that, I think my diet is in general healthier).

Sentient beings are entitled to compassion, to be free of unnecessary suffering. Before a certain stage of pregnancy, a human foetus is not sentient and therefore cannot be subject to suffering or pleasure of any kind. The argument leveled against abortion at any stage is an entirely arbitrary distinction made on the basis of species and nothing else.

Finally, let’s look at the matter from a practical point of view. The Catholic Church does say (Catechism, paragraph 2416): “Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.”. Are you sure that is not a more reasonable approach…?

It places the welfare of other animals in the hands of a being imagined by humans - even if those animals are under direct human care - and offers no penalty for their mistreatment, only a weak assertion that we “owe them kindness”. Since most humans clearly don’t recall the kindness of St Francis or St Philip, but are rather guided by the generic assumption that, “if it’s not human, it doesn’t really matter,” then, no - I don’t think this is a more reasonalble approach, only an escape hatch for those who don’t wish to attach any ethical importance to our treatment of other sentient beings.

 

[MPat]

Most humans, unless they are committed vegetarians, are unable to refrain from the desire (or, perhaps, the need) to eat animal protein. I know some people who really struggle with the conflict between their deeply-ingrained desire for meat and their belief that a vegan diet is the ethical ideal.

I don’t believe that eating other animals is evil, but by the same token, I don’t believe that ritual cannibalism is evil either. It’s a religious belief that has been (and still is, by some remote tribal societies) held as seriously as any Christian or other monotheistic belief. I think it is actually possible to respect other animals and still eat them - provided they are raised with a care for their innate requirements, and slaughtered with the absolute minimum of stress. This is why I opt for free-range and organic animal products (and thus eat less of them than is apparently standard in the West, because the cost of producing them is greater…but for that, I think my diet is in general healthier).

Sentient beings are entitled to compassion, to be free of unnecessary suffering. Before a certain stage of pregnancy, a human foetus is not sentient and therefore cannot be subject to suffering or pleasure of any kind. The argument leveled against abortion at any stage is an entirely arbitrary distinction made on the basis of species and nothing else.

It places the welfare of other animals in the hands of a being imagined by humans - even if those animals are under direct human care - and offers no penalty for their mistreatment, only a weak assertion that we “owe them kindness”. Since most humans clearly don’t recall the kindness of St Francis or St Philip, but are rather guided by the generic assumption that, “if it’s not human, it doesn’t really matter,” then, no - I don’t think this is a more reasonalble approach, only an escape hatch for those who don’t wish to attach any ethical importance to our treatment of other sentient beings.

OK, in such case, sorry for stating your position incorrectly. I didn’t expect that your views concerning allowable things that can be done to animals are going to be so close to the Catholic teachings. Your “Sentient beings are entitled to compassion, to be free of unnecessary suffering.” is even worded extremely closely to the “It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.” (Catechism, paragraph 2418).

So, it looks like the difference between your position and Catholic position has little to do with compassion to animals and far more to do with compassion to humans.

Still, I’ll try to “adapt” my question. If you see nothing wrong with the cat eating a mouse, do you see something wrong with the cat “playing” with a mouse before eating it? “Playing” does seem to be stressful to the mouse, doesn’t it?

Also, a second question, “provoked” by what you wrote about abortion and cannibalism: do you at least see something wrong with a “simple”, “obvious” murder of a healthy innocent adult human? I certainly think that the answer is “yes”, but the way you worded your position seems to give no explanation for this - thus I guess that you will have to “tighten up” your position… At the moment I suspect that you will change “Sentient beings are entitled to compassion, to be free of unnecessary suffering.” to “Sentient beings are entitled to compassion, to be free of unnecessary suffering and killing.”, but, of course, I have already made one wrong guess…

Finally, your last paragraph is hard to understand. For example, what do you mean by “It …] offers no penalty for their mistreatment”…? What “penalty” would you expect? Also, is “Since most humans …] are rather guided by the generic assumption that, ‘if it’s not human, it doesn’t really matter’” meant to be a hyperbole…? Although the rest of the paragraph is not much clearer either…

 

[tabycat]

“But is this a difference of degree or of kind?” - well, that’s an important question. I would answer that it is a difference of kind, you would answer that it is a difference of degree. I would say that on one side we have the use of reason, while on the other side we do not.

Now the example of use of reason is a participation in a philosophical discussion. Why would it matter more than, let’s say, noticing a changed number of eggs, recognising similar textures, seeing “ultraviolet colour”, running fast, feeling pain and emotions, or many other things which (some) other animals can do? Well, there is a reason. If you do not see it, try to persuade some cat or dog not to eat meat.

That leads to another point. At the first sight it might look that it is more compassionate to other animals to assume that they have rights and are equal (or “semi-equal”) to humans. But if you make this assumption, how will you avoid ending up forced to condemn cat eating a mouse or a wolf eating a bunny about as strongly, as a human murdering another human? And I see little compassion to wolfs and cats in that… Are they supposed to starve to death instead?

And if the difference between reason (that other animals lack) and “neural abilities” (that they have) is a difference of kind and not of degree, the rest of your argument seems to collapse.

Finally, let’s look at the matter from a practical point of view. The Catholic Church does say (Catechism, paragraph 2416): “Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.”. Are you sure that is not a more reasonable approach…?

:

 

[Sair]

OK, in such case, sorry for stating your position incorrectly. I didn’t expect that your views concerning allowable things that can be done to animals are going to be so close to the Catholic teachings. Your “Sentient beings are entitled to compassion, to be free of unnecessary suffering.” is even worded extremely closely to the “It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.” (Catechism, paragraph 2418).

So, it looks like the difference between your position and Catholic position has little to do with compassion to animals and far more to do with compassion to humans.

The difference is that my position recognises that other animals have dignity in their own right, in their own way, rather than presuming that their entitlement to freedom from unnecessary suffering stems from any particular human importance, or that humanity sets the standard for possession of dignity or integrity.

Still, I’ll try to “adapt” my question. If you see nothing wrong with the cat eating a mouse, do you see something wrong with the cat “playing” with a mouse before eating it? “Playing” does seem to be stressful to the mouse, doesn’t it?

Yes, of course - and in an ideal world, such things would not happen. However, nature is as indifferently cruel as it is beautiful, at the end of the day. Maybe this is something that believers in an omnibenevolent god could take up with their deity. The fact of the matter is that cats generally don’t have the ability to consider the feelings of a mouse that they are terrifying and hurting - much as young children don’t have the ability to notice when they are hurting small animals that they handle, or even other children that they bully or hit. That is just the way they’re wired.

Also, a second question, “provoked” by what you wrote about abortion and cannibalism: do you at least see something wrong with a “simple”, “obvious” murder of a healthy innocent adult human?

Of course - this is an act performed against a fully sentient individual, for no valid reason. My reference to cannibalism was not simply regarding the killing of other humans for the sole purpose of eating them - some tribal cultures eat the remains of their dead as an act of respect. Abortion - at the very least, if performed in the first trimester - harms no sentient being.

As to other animals being entitled to freedom from unnecessary suffering and killing, at what point do you draw the line between necessary and unnecessary? Obviously we consider immediate self-defence a valid reason to kill another human or another animal displaying aggression. We consider our need (and for most people, it actually is a need) to consume animal protein to be a valid reason for slaughtering other animals, but not for subjecting them to excessive pain and distress - hence the laws that exist (at least in some countries) regarding acceptable slaughtering practices, and the increasing push for raising animals in free-range and organic environments. But what about the knee-jerk reactions that occur when a human is killed by a shark, for example? Is it then valid to go out hunting sharks just because they might kill humans? Here in Victoria, laws have recently been passed, following the fatal mauling of a young girl by a pit bull terrier, under which, basically, any dog that looks sufficiently like a pit bull may be seized and put to death. Is this necessary? And if it is, where are the laws dictating that any human who looks like a violent thug may be imprisoned and possibly face the death penalty?

Finally, your last paragraph is hard to understand. For example, what do you mean by “It …] offers no penalty for their mistreatment”…? What “penalty” would you expect? Also, is “Since most humans …] are rather guided by the generic assumption that, ‘if it’s not human, it doesn’t really matter’” meant to be a hyperbole…? Although the rest of the paragraph is not much clearer either…

The last paragraph regards the idea that the worth of other animals rests primarily in their being the creations of the theistic god, who is - I believe, anyway - just a creation of humans anyway. There is no commandment against cruelty to other animals, no religiously sanctioned penalty - in the sense that it is not generally referred to as a “mortal sin”. And when you believe - as, technically, one should if one is a Catholic - that other animals lack any qualities of personhood and do not possess an immortal “soul”, then it becomes quite easy to dismiss them as being of no real importance in their own right, in moral terms; any importance they do have under the scope of such beliefs, as I indicated above, is insofar as their treatment at the hands of humans is a reflection upon us and our own moral condition. How often does one hear the phrase, “It’s just an animal”?

 

[Equites_Christi]

Sair, this is the Catholic thought:

Man has an immortal, rational soul. This is a difference not of degree, but of kind, with regards to all other animals. You would be right to say that if our arguments were based on intelligence or ability, they would fail, because they would be differences of degree and arbitrary (in addition, this would create a dilemma with mentally handicapped humans.) However, the Catholic thought is that a human life is qualitatively different than an animal life, and takes precedence over it.

Furthermore, Catholics believe that God has given mankind dominion and stewardship over creation. Through our dominion, we may cut down trees for their wood, take stone from mountains, and kill animals for their products. But to destroy a species or habitat irreplaceably, unless out of necessity, seems a failing in stewardship and lack of proper respect for God’s creation.

Abuse or cruelty of any kind has no place in Catholic theology. However, it is alright that animals should die, even experience pain (though none should be sought to inflict) for the good of humanity.

 

[MPat]

The difference is that my position recognises that other animals have dignity in their own right, in their own way, rather than presuming that their entitlement to freedom from unnecessary suffering stems from any particular human importance, or that humanity sets the standard for possession of dignity or integrity.

It’s a difference, but not a practical difference. But when you consider abortion acceptable, while the Church considers it to be unacceptable, it is a practical difference.

Yes, of course - and in an ideal world, such things would not happen. However, nature is as indifferently cruel as it is beautiful, at the end of the day. Maybe this is something that believers in an omnibenevolent god could take up with their deity. The fact of the matter is that cats generally don’t have the ability to consider the feelings of a mouse that they are terrifying and hurting - much as young children don’t have the ability to notice when they are hurting small animals that they handle, or even other children that they bully or hit. That is just the way they’re wired.

Yes, cats are not rational. And thus the Church says that they are not equal to rational beings and do not have their responsibilities (in other words, cats cannot sin).

But, of course, your position is different. You think that cats are equal to humans. You also said that intellect and related abilities do not matter in the case of moral standing (“It’s certainly not true that we exceed other animals in other areas, so why privilege intellect in particular?” from one of your previous posts). But here you seem to treat humans and other animals unequally on the basis of some intellectual (or related) ability: when a human causes an animal to suffer, you call for some “penalty”, but when an animal does so, you excuse its action because of lack of “ability to consider the feelings”. Sorry, but it is logically inconsistent. You will have to change or clarify something to reach a logically consistent position.

As to other animals being entitled to freedom from unnecessary suffering and killing, at what point do you draw the line between necessary and unnecessary? Obviously we consider immediate self-defence a valid reason to kill another human or another animal displaying aggression. We consider our need (and for most people, it actually is a need) to consume animal protein to be a valid reason for slaughtering other animals, but not for subjecting them to excessive pain and distress - hence the laws that exist (at least in some countries) regarding acceptable slaughtering practices, and the increasing push for raising animals in free-range and organic environments. But what about the knee-jerk reactions that occur when a human is killed by a shark, for example? Is it then valid to go out hunting sharks just because they might kill humans? Here in Victoria, laws have recently been passed, following the fatal mauling of a young girl by a pit bull terrier, under which, basically, any dog that looks sufficiently like a pit bull may be seized and put to death. Is this necessary? And if it is, where are the laws dictating that any human who looks like a violent thug may be imprisoned and possibly face the death penalty?

Actually, it is you who wrote “Sentient beings are entitled to compassion, to be free of unnecessary suffering.”. And no, I do not know what do you count as “necessary”.

The last paragraph regards the idea that the worth of other animals rests primarily in their being the creations of the theistic god, who is - I believe, anyway - just a creation of humans anyway. There is no commandment against cruelty to other animals, no religiously sanctioned penalty - in the sense that it is not generally referred to as a “mortal sin”. And when you believe - as, technically, one should if one is a Catholic - that other animals lack any qualities of personhood and do not possess an immortal “soul”, then it becomes quite easy to dismiss them as being of no real importance in their own right, in moral terms; any importance they do have under the scope of such beliefs, as I indicated above, is insofar as their treatment at the hands of humans is a reflection upon us and our own moral condition. How often does one hear the phrase, “It’s just an animal”?

Well, your opinion about God’s existence does not matter that much in this case, given that Catholics do believe that God exists…

Concerning the sinfulness of cruelty to animals, at the very least, I do not see any clear indication that it can never be a mortal sin.

“How often does one hear the phrase, ‘It’s just an animal’?”…? Not often. Not often at all. Well, at least I do not hear it often…

 

[northernstar]

There is no reason to suppose that other animals lack emotion. Emotion is quite a primitive feature, certainly prior to reason or intellect, and fundamental emotions such as fear and attachment are often essential for survival. We see this even in human development from infancy through to adulthood. Emotion is what prompts many behaviours in animals, from the most basic to the more complex, including the fact that elephants, for example, have been observed to mourn their dead fellows.

The idea that other animals lack emotion or intellect, that they don’t qualify for personhood, has primarily been used as an excuse for humans to abuse them and exploit them without feeling guilt for harming a “person” or a being of any importance.

But anyone who has ever kept companion animals or spent any time at all around other animals could not fail to notice the distinctive signs of sentience, emotion and intelligence. Evolution (which is actually a fact, by the way; the ‘theory’ part comes into play in discerning how it happened - that it happened has been in no doubt amongst biologists, even before Darwin) establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that we are fundamentally related to all other living things, and most closely to other mammals, especially other primates. There is no reason to suppose that there is some thick black line that separates humans from all other organisms. We might value other humans more than other animals (in general), but that is because we are human - pretty much all animals display recognition and preference, to some degree, for their own kind.

When it comes to issues of life and death, of our treatment of other living beings, we cannot afford to take these things lightly just because we are dealing with nonhuman animals. There’s little doubt that mistreatment of other animals correlates with a greater likelihood of mistreatment of other humans as well. And if we use a lack of intelligence, for example, as an excuse for cruelty to nonhuman animals, what’s to stop us from using the same excuse for humans with intellectual disabilities, or infant humans who have yet to develop their intellectual capacity, or elderly humans with dementia who have lost their mental capacity? Refusal to respect nonhuman animals based on the fact that they are not human is speciesism, plain and simple, and is not rationally or ethically justifiable. As Jeremy Bentham, the father of Utilitarian ethics, eloquently put it, “The question is not, ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they speak?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’”.

MOST EXCELLENT REPLY…no animals are not persons, so what? I know as you said if you are around animals you know they have emotions. My cats crave attention, get and then curl up and sleep. I have seen them embarrassed (missing a jump) and go to another room to hide, scared because all the furniture was moved around, angry when I came back from vacation and gave me the cold shoulder. But they sure do forgive fast. I just believe we should love every living thing and that does not put mankind in a equal or lower position in value. How can you love God and not love all he has created and give the same level of love he gave in creating the earth. When I believe everything is God’s creation I feel more connected to Him and people.