Theological/moral implications of intelligent animals

  • Thread starter Thread starter Windfish
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Windfish

Guest
…so yeah, I was watching Oprah just now. I will let you laugh at me about that for a few seconds.

Done, yet?

Ok. They had a few segments on astoundingly intelligent animals, and what the theological implications of all this are, specifically in relation to the soul. These animals can communicate with us through sign language, and we have observed in them tool-making ability, rituals for their dead, emotions, self-identification, and many more qualities that I would say belong to a rational mind/soul.

How does this all fit in a Catholic understanding of animals? I am a newbie at this topic, so I wondering if any of you have been doing something thinking on this already.
 
…so yeah, I was watching Oprah just now. I will let you laugh at me about that for a few seconds.

Done, yet?

Ok. They had a few segments on astoundingly intelligent animals, and what the theological implications of all this are, specifically in relation to the soul. These animals can communicate with us through sign language, and we have observed in them tool-making ability, rituals for their dead, emotions, self-identification, and many more qualities that I would say belong to a rational mind/soul.

How does this all fit in a Catholic understanding of animals? I am a newbie at this topic, so I wondering if any of you have been doing something thinking on this already.
What kind of intellegence did they exhibit? Did they exhibit self reflection? Agape? Free will? I highly doubt it. Humans are uniquely created beings of immortal spirit and matter made in the image and likeness of God. See Genesis Chapters 1 and 2. No beast of the air, sea or land is our equal in this regard.

Any implication that they (animals) are made in God’s image is heresy.
 
What kind of intellegence did they exhibit? Did they exhibit self reflection? Agape? Free will? I highly doubt it. Humans are uniquely created beings of immortal spirit and matter made in the image and likeness of God. See Genesis Chapters 1 and 2. No beast of the air, sea or land is our equal in this regard.

Any implication that they (animals) are made in God’s image is heresy.
They behaved and exhibited intelligence like human toddlers.

Elephants, as an aside, have a ritual for their dead, where they all gather around the corpse of a fallen companion and touch them one last time with their trunks.
 
We can’t prove they have a soul, and even if we somehow did we wouldn’t be able to tell if it ascended, transmigrated or disintegrated after the animal dies, so it remains a theological matter.
 
…so yeah, I was watching Oprah just now. I will let you laugh at me about that for a few seconds.

Done, yet?

Ok. They had a few segments on astoundingly intelligent animals, and what the theological implications of all this are, specifically in relation to the soul. These animals can communicate with us through sign language, and we have observed in them tool-making ability, rituals for their dead, emotions, self-identification, and many more qualities that I would say belong to a rational mind/soul.

How does this all fit in a Catholic understanding of animals? I am a newbie at this topic, so I wondering if any of you have been doing something thinking on this already.
Dangerous ground to tread. We have been given rightful dominion over all the earth, plants and animals included. They are not on our level.

Frankly, I loved my kittehs while they were alive, and they were probably smarter than the average senator, but they were animals. I believe they had animal souls, could feel pain, contentment, and fear, but they were animals.
 
They behaved and exhibited intelligence like human toddlers.

Elephants, as an aside, have a ritual for their dead, where they all gather around the corpse of a fallen companion and touch them one last time with their trunks.
How do these behaviors give an accurate picture of the whether the behavior is instinct driven or human self-willed?
 
…so yeah, I was watching Oprah just now. I will let you laugh at me about that for a few seconds.

Done, yet?

Ok. They had a few segments on astoundingly intelligent animals, and what the theological implications of all this are, specifically in relation to the soul. These animals can communicate with us through sign language, and we have observed in them tool-making ability, rituals for their dead, emotions, self-identification, and many more qualities that I would say belong to a rational mind/soul.

How does this all fit in a Catholic understanding of animals? I am a newbie at this topic, so I wondering if any of you have been doing something thinking on this already.
So what animals are ‘astoundingly intelligent’? And what do you mean by ‘astoundingingly intelligent’? Do they read? Solve mathematical equations? Write speeches? Build houses with electricity driving modern tools?

From what you write here, I’d expect some of these ‘astoundingly intelligent animals’ will soon be demanding a university education.
 
How do these behaviors give an accurate picture of the whether the behavior is instinct driven or human self-willed?
Excellent question, and it is one that I have been pondering, but I have not been able to articulate. Perhaps it’s like a parrot, they produce sounds that sound to us like words, but they do not necessarily know and understand the meanings of those words.
 
Hello Windfish,

I saw a nice program a couple of years ago about elephants and they showed a video of an elephant death ritual. It’s interesting to see them continue to appreciate a member even though that member is dead. I guess I would call it - elephant dignity. 🙂 They are beautiful animals, I hope we are able to preserve them and all other species for future generations.

Death ritual

Elephants are the only other species on Earth other than Homo sapiens sapiens and Neanderthals[31] known to have any recognizable ritual around death. They show a keen interest in the bones of their own kind (even unrelated elephants that have died long ago). They are often seen gently investigating the bones with their trunks and feet, and remaining very quiet. Sometimes elephants that are completely unrelated to the deceased will still visit their graves.[9] When an elephant is hurt, other elephants (also even if they are unrelated) will aid them.[19]

Elephant researcher Martin Meredith recalls an occurrence in his book about a typical elephant death ritual that was witnessed by Anthony Martin-Hall, a South African biologist who had studied elephants in Addo, South Africa for over 8 years. The entire family of a dead matriarch, including her young calf were all gently touching her body with their trunks and tried to lift her. The elephant herd were all rumbling loudly. The calf was observed to be weeping and made sounds that sounded like a scream but then the entire herd fell incredibly silent. They then began to throw leaves and dirt over the body and broke off tree branches to cover her. They spent the next 2 days quietly standing over her body. They sometimes had to leave to get water or food, but they would always return.[32] Occurrences of elephants behaving this way around human beings are common through Africa. On many occasions, they have buried dead or sleeping humans or aided them when they were hurt.[19] Meredith also recalls an event told to him by George Adamson, a Kenyan Game Warden regarding an old Turkana woman who fell asleep under a tree after losing her way home. When she woke up, there was an elephant standing over her, gently touching her. She kept very still because she was very frightened. As other elephants arrived, they began to scream loudly and buried her under branches. She was found the next morning by the local herdsmen, unharmed.[32]…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_intelligence

Here are some Catholic comments I was reading:

Pope Leo XIII
Rerum novarum

For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own. This is one of the chief points of distinction between man and the animal creation, for the brute has no power of self direction, but is governed by two main instincts, which keep his powers on the alert, impel him to develop them in a fitting manner, and stimulate and determine him to action without any power of choice. One of these instincts is self preservation, the other the propagation of the species. Both can attain their purpose by means of things which lie within range; beyond their verge the brute creation cannot go, for they are moved to action by their senses only, and in the special direction which these suggest. But with man it is wholly different. He possesses, on the one hand, the full perfection of the animal being, and hence enjoys at least as much as the rest of the animal kind, the fruition of things material. But animal nature, however perfect, is far from representing the human being in its completeness, and is in truth but humanity’s humble handmaid, made to serve and to obey. It is the mind, or reason, which is the predominant element in us who are human creatures; it is this which renders a human being human, and distinguishes him essentially from the brute. And on this very account - that man alone among the animal creation is endowed with reason - it must be within his right to possess things not merely for temporary and momentary use, as other living things do, but to have and to hold them in stable and permanent possession; he must have not only things that perish in the use, but those also which, though they have been reduced into use, continue for further use in after time. vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA:
Animals and reason

Finally, a word may be added on the so-called reason of animals… newadvent.org/cathen/12673b.htm

See CCC 1951 scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1951.htm
 
The great French philosopher and mathematician wrote:
“Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait pas.” (The heart has its reasons that reason does not know.)

There are other forms of knowledge animals seem to possess that we may have lost…

There is no reason to suppose none of them survives after death. For many people heaven would be incomplete without their faithful companions on earth.
 
As I’ve understood it, traditionally the separation between animals and humans (philosophically) is the ability to understand universals. My cat can see any number of triangles, but will never understand triangularity (3 sides, sum of all angles is 180 degrees, etc.). From our ability to understand universals we can derive an immaterial part of our souls (because triangularity is not material, you cannot see, touch, taste or hear it) and since that which is immaterial is unchangeable (because matter is the principle of change) we can then see that via. our soul’s immateriality it is, in some way, immortal (the kind of immortality depends on whether you ask Aquinas, Aristotle or someone else) and so is fundamentally different from the souls of animals.

Hey, would you look at that…my Philosophy 101 class in a nutshell. 😛
 
As I’ve understood it, traditionally the separation between animals and humans (philosophically) is the ability to understand universals. My cat can see any number of triangles, but will never understand triangularity (3 sides, sum of all angles is 180 degrees, etc.). From our ability to understand universals we can derive an immaterial part of our souls (because triangularity is not material, you cannot see, touch, taste or hear it) and since that which is immaterial is unchangeable (because matter is the principle of change) we can then see that via. our soul’s immateriality it is, in some way, immortal (the kind of immortality depends on whether you ask Aquinas, Aristotle or someone else) and so is fundamentally different from the souls of animals.

Hey, would you look at that…my Philosophy 101 class in a nutshell. 😛
The ability on whose part? Ours, or the animals? Universals, according to some philosophers, are mere mental constructs. I suspect that our OP ( and he will correct me if I’m wrong here) is suggesting that the distinction between humans and animals is just such a construct and is demonstrably so because he is writing about animals of superior intelligence. This “superior intelligence”, then, should then make us wonder about the distinction between man and the animals.

Our OP has not defined this “superior intelligence”. Is this ‘superior intelligence’ superior in the animal world, or is it absolutely ‘superior’? In other words, is it on a par with and to be compared to human intelligence? Firstly, let me corrct you on one point. Triangularity is material and can be demonstrated as such. Your cat may see a triangle as we describe it so, but it could not see a triangle as anything other than another shaped object in the world it must negotiate its way through. Animals, by their very nature, can be nothing but what they are. Some are more ‘intelligent’ than others, but that intelligence can be nothing other than the intelligence pertaining to the nature of what each animal is. Intelligent cats are still cats and can never be anything else.
 
The ability on whose part? Ours, or the animals? Universals, according to some philosophers, are mere mental constructs
Our ability to understand universals (even for nominalists, such as Aristotle) is the key point at which our intellect differs from the animal intellect.
let me corrct you on one point. Triangularity is material and can be demonstrated as such. Your cat may see a triangle as we describe it so, but it could not see a triangle as anything other than another shaped object in the world it must negotiate its way through. Animals, by their very nature, can be nothing but what they are. Some are more ‘intelligent’ than others, but that intelligence can be nothing other than the intelligence pertaining to the nature of what each animal is. Intelligent cats are still cats and can never be anything else.
This in no way shows triangularity (or goodness, justice, roundness, or any other universal notion you like) to be material. You may have misunderstood what I meant when I was talking about triangularity. I was referring to the “what-ness” or essence of a triangle, that which makes a triangle not a square or a cat. If this essence were material (physical) then you could sense it in some way (touch, taste, smell, sound, sight) and you can do none of these things with a universal notion. I can taste a triangle of Toblerone but I cannot taste triangularity.

I’m not suggesting we go full-on Platonist here and posit the Forms, but, as a general rule, Aristotelian principles work very well with Church teaching (if you don’t believe me, ask our dear old friend St. Tom 😉 ).
 
Our ability to understand universals (even for nominalists, such as Aristotle) is the key point at which our intellect differs from the animal intellect.

This in no way shows triangularity (or goodness, justice, roundness, or any other universal notion you like) to be material. You may have misunderstood what I meant when I was talking about triangularity. I was referring to the “what-ness” or essence of a triangle, that which makes a triangle not a square or a cat. If this essence were material (physical) then you could sense it in some way (touch, taste, smell, sound, sight) and you can do none of these things with a universal notion. I can taste a triangle of Toblerone but I cannot taste triangularity.

I’m not suggesting we go full-on Platonist here and posit the Forms, but, as a general rule, Aristotelian principles work very well with Church teaching (if you don’t believe me, ask our dear old friend St. Tom 😉 ).
Well, if you can’t taste triangularity, your career as a chocolate marketer is finished!! 😃
Thomism is certainly grounded in Aristotelianism, but even St. Tom was more of a Realist than Aristotle. As for triangles, the great mathemetician Godel firmly believed they were there to be discovered as ontological realities. Same with cats. They are a distinct ontological ‘thing’, possessing ‘catness’ (yes, a universal!) and a degree of intelligence. However, I posit that cat intelligence is different from human intelligence and incredibly intelligent cats will never possess the attributes of human intelligence. Therefore, they will never be admitted into a University to study Philosophy 101!!
 

Ok. They had a few segments on astoundingly intelligent animals, and what the theological implications of all this are, specifically in relation to the soul. These animals can communicate with us through sign language, and we have observed in them tool-making ability, rituals for their dead, emotions, self-identification, and many more qualities that I would say belong to a rational mind/soul.

.
and some humans through calamities inborn or after birth, never develop such powers, which says nothing whatever about their souls. so the discussion says nothing about the soul per se. The Church teaches that humans have human souls with capacities “a little less than the angels” which are immortal and capable of everlasting perfect happiness with God whether or not the bodies they inhabited allowed them to experience rational thought and action while alive on earth. Animals have animal souls, and some have a high degree of intelligence enhanced by training at the hands of humans, and those souls die when the animal dies.
 
The people who believe it is wrong to kill animals will give you the answer you would expect of them and the converse applies. Whether or not animals are intelligent does not change the central issue here: do animals have souls. Although perhaps it does add in a new question: is it wrong to kill intelligence; to what extent can the termination of intelligence be equated with the termination of life (in a human sense).

You could argue that killing humans is the termination of intelligence much like killing animals is the termination of intelligence also. The difference being that humans are supposed to have a life after this one while animals are not (this is the view of the ‘its okay to kill animals’ camp). So, if an animal is self-aware and we simply do not realise, it is perhaps far darker to end the existence of a self-aware being that does not have a hope of existence thereafter: throwing sentience into the void, than to end the life of a being that does have a chance of existence after death.

I feel like it would be beneficial to add that the people who are fine with animal killing are only fine with certain animals killed. For example, they would support slaughterhouse meat but would not support the actions of the well-publicised Japanese kitten killing video. The argument can be made that one is for sustenance and one is not… but having (unfortunately) seen both a clip of the kitten video and inside-slaughterhouse videos I think you would be nuts to claim that the two aren’t equable in some way.
 
The people who believe it is wrong to kill animals will give you the answer you would expect of them and the converse applies. Whether or not animals are intelligent does not change the central issue here: do animals have souls. Although perhaps it does add in a new question: is it wrong to kill intelligence; to what extent can the termination of intelligence be equated with the termination of life (in a human sense).

You could argue that killing humans is the termination of intelligence much like killing animals is the termination of intelligence also. The difference being that humans are supposed to have a life after this one while animals are not (this is the view of the ‘its okay to kill animals’ camp). So, if an animal is self-aware and we simply do not realise, it is perhaps far darker to end the existence of a self-aware being that does not have a hope of existence thereafter: throwing sentience into the void, than to end the life of a being that does have a chance of existence after death.

I feel like it would be beneficial to add that the people who are fine with animal killing are only fine with certain animals killed. For example, they would support slaughterhouse meat but would not support the actions of the well-publicised Japanese kitten killing video. The argument can be made that one is for sustenance and one is not… but having (unfortunately) seen both a clip of the kitten video and inside-slaughterhouse videos I think you would be nuts to claim that the two aren’t equable in some way.
Re: Bold

Catholics normally define soul as the animating principle of things that are alive.

Given this, a more important question than the one you pose is “what kind of souls do they have?”
 
Re: Bold

Catholics normally define soul as the animating principle of things that are alive.

Given this, a more important question than the one you pose is “what kind of souls do they have?”
All living things have souls. Plants and animals have irrational souls. Humans have rational and immortal souls.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top