MULT10016

Tutor: Paul Carter

Sarah Burke

Human perceptions of animals throughout Western history

Humans have long been aware of the suffering of animals that stem from human actions. Western

debates surrounding the moral consideration of non-human animals have generated a wide range of

opinions from the pre-Socratics, to Christians, to Enlightenment and 18th century philosophers, to

19th century parliamentarians and countless animal rights advocacy movements in the present. Some

philosophers such as Aristotle and the Stoics used humankind's reasoning abilities as an argument for

the distinction between moral considerations of animals and humans, while later philosophers such as

Hume and Locke believed that regardless of reason, animals were objects to be subjected to the

whims of humans. These later arguments were underwritten by fundamental Christian tenets from the

Old Testament regarding humankind's dominion over the natural world which influenced human

perception but also appeared at a time when knowledge about the suffering of animals was growing.

In the 21st century, some Christian perceptions are more potently informed by the New Testament

values which encourage stewardship rather than mastery of the natural world. This, the growth in

scientific knowledge about the centrality of animals in ecosystems, and the various movements which

place animal welfare and the reduction of human consumption and use of animals at their core, signal

a new age of moral consideration regarding our relationship to animals.

Since the pre-Socratic era, the treatment of animals by humans has been predicated on animals'

inability to reason. Humans are considered amongst many philosophers, past and present, to be the

'rational' species while animals have been believed to be devoid of reason. Aristotle and the Stoics

distinguished humans from animals with the claim that animals were irrational and therefore exempt

from moral or political consideration (Mesaros, 189). The Stoic belief that animals could be

subjugated for human needs and desires was mirrored in the Old Testament's precept that animals, and

1
the natural world in general, could be oppressed and used by humans (Yarri, 119). Although this

Christian view came from the belief that God created the earth specifically for humans and purposely

awarded humans power over nature, the Stoic belief was deeply rooted in the idea that the reasoning

abilities of humans warranted humankind's perceived supremacy. As this belief transcended religion

and eras, it can be deduced that humans innately believe in the separation and control of animals

while using reason and religious belief to uphold and justify this notion.

As it has long influenced nearly every facet of the Western world, the Christian view of a divine

natural hierarchy has informed the West's actions towards non-human animals and has been the

dominant paradigm governing our interaction with animals for centuries. The Catholic Church

believed in a hierarchy with God at its apex, Church leaders beneath, and animals at the base (Yarri,

118). This belief justified people to bring animals under their control for consumption, labour, ritual,

or medical purposes without heed to a broader morality nor to the central role that animals inhabit in

the functioning of ecosystems. Despite the fact that some Christians followed the belief that treating

animals with care could be virtuous and help humans to gain ascendancy into heaven, harming

animals was not seen to be sinful or immoral. Yet a challenge to this orthodoxy presented itself in

Christians who viewed humans as stewards instead of masters of nature (Shin, 286). One influential

figure who believed this was the Italian friar and philosopher, St Francis of Assissi (1181-1226). He

advocated for more just and humane treatment of animals as they, too, were a part of God's divine

creation (Applebaum, 165). So influential was his advocacy of the sanctity of animals and his needs-

based interpretation of the gospel that the Franciscan religious order was established in his name

(Shin, 286). The intellectual reasoning behind the belief of the Franciscan order presented a new

perspective on the relationship between humans and animals that demanded recognition (Applebaum,

165). He gained a devoted following during his time, including St Clare of Assissi (1194-1253), and

this religious and intellectual movement therefore presented a challenge hitherto accepted beliefs

(Shin, 286). The existence of Christian factions that promoted a more humanitarian view of animals

2
indicates a questioning and, ultimately, a rejection of the Old Testament's view of human supremacy

over nature and its use of religion to justify the subjugation of animals.

By contrast, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) had a strictly utilitarian perception of humankind's

relationship with animals which would become the prevailing view and has influenced contemporary

consumption and medical research concerning animals in the present day. Some of Bentham's

predecessors such as Rene Descartes (1596-1650), John Locke (1632-1704), and David Hume (1711-

1776) believed that animals were able to reason, yet were still not worthy of moral consideration due

to the underlying Christian idea of human dominion and the view that animals were soulless objects

subject to the desires of humans (Mesaros, 186). Conversely, Bentham maintained that animals were

in fact unable to reason but was of the view that since animals could suffer, legislation should protect

"any sensitive being" (Bentham, 36). He likened the liberation of animals from human dominion to

the French acknowledging their unjust treatment of their slave colonies (Bentham, 311). However,

while Bentham used obliquely different reasoning to explain the condition of animals, his utilitarian

view meant that humans were still above animals and that our sensibilities of pain and pleasure had

primacy over the moral considerations of animals.

His views on vivisection arose when the English parliament debated its ethics. Bentham's response

revealed his deep-seated belief in the supremacy of the human species as the suffering of countless

animals was less pertinent when considering the potential benefits to humankind. Bentham was of the

view that using humans as medical subjects in this case was vehemently immoral, demonstrating his

underlying view of human's dominion over animals. His utilitarianism, influenced by his foundational

notion of human dominion, can be seen to fundamentally contradict his idea that animals should be

protected under law and can experience pain like humans can, yet this was extremely influential for

centuries and is the prevailing view in contemporary society.

3
It is likely that the animal rights movement will become a prominent new progressive frontier in the

same way that feminism and anti-racism have. There are now calls for animals to receive the same or

similar personhood status as humans (Trabsky). This notion was even mentioned by Bentham in 1789

when he stated that a "day may come" when animals might receive the same rights as humans in the

same way that France's African slave colonies were finally acknowledged as being equally deserving

of liberation from tyranny as white people (Bentham, 311). The promotion of animal rights has long

existed in the West and in modern society has taken various forms including vegan animal welfare

advocacy and elevated awareness of the illegal wildlife trade. Even the Catholic Church's view has

shifted, with the current Pope Francis taking his papal name from St Francis of Assissi and

continually advocating for the just treatment of animals. His 2015 encyclical, Laudato Si, outlined his

concern for the natural world due to the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss and urged

Christians to be better stewards not only for humankind, but for the protection of animals. Although

the encyclical states that mistreatment of "any creature" is "contrary to human dignity", it also outlines

that human action upon animals is justified if it is in accordance with the "necessities of human life",

suggesting that although the modern Catholic Church takes many of its tenets from the New

Testament, there are vestiges of the original view of human dominion.

It could be inferred that the increasing illumination on the plight of animals under human domination

is a product of a simultaneous rise in atheism and the modern Christian patronage of the New

Testament. Yet even without religious reasoning, nor the more egalitarian views of the New

Testament, humans still have an innate sense of supremacy over animals. While all animals are

concerned with their own welfare over others, the reasoning ability of humans could lend itself to the

ethical considerations of animals in times to come.

Humans have speculated on the moral considerations of animals from our earliest philosophers to the

modern era. Our interference in the natural world has come from an often subconscious sense of

supremacy. This sense of superiority has been justified and rationalised using distinctions between

human and animal reasoning abilities, religious hierarchy, and the dichotomy between human and

4
animal souls. It has also brought considerable damage to the natural world through deliberate

extinction of some animal species or indifference to extinction and reductions in populations of

animals. Although there have always been advocates for the moral considerations of the welfare of

animals such as St Francis of Assissi and his followers, even some animal rights advocates, like

Bentham, have failed to entirely release themselves of the inherent sense of human dominion,

cultivated by the precedence of the self-serving whims and of humans. However, it is probable that

cultural shifts will eventually usher in a significant championing of animal rights and that animals

might one day be treated as true equals to humankind.

References

Pope Francis. Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ of the Holy Father Francis on Care for Our Common
Home. The Holy See: Vatican Press, 2015.

Bentham, Jeremy. Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Batoche Books, 1789.
 
Appelbaum, Patricia Faith. St. Francis of America : How a Thirteenth-Century Friar Became
America’s Most Popular Saint. University of North Carolina Press, 2015  
 
Preece, Rod. Animals and Nature: Cultural Myths, Cultural Realities. UBC Press, c. 1999, pg 73-92
& 119-160
 
Trabsky, Marc. Legal Personhood #8: Animals. Law and Justice, 16 June 2015,
https://law.blogs.latrobe.edu.au/2015/06/17/legal-personhood-8-animals/

Mesaros, Claudiu. Aristotle and Animal Mind, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume
163, 2014, pg 185-192

‌Shin, Junhyoung Michael. “The Souls of Animals in Christianity and Mahā yā na

Buddhism.” Buddhist Christian Studies, vol. 39, Jan. 2019, pg 271–288

Yarri, Donna. The Ethics of Animal Experimentation. [Electronic Resource] : A Critical Analysis

and Constructive Christian Proposal. Oxford University Press, 2005.

Miller, Daniel K. Animal Ethics and Theology : The Lens of the Good Samaritan. Routledge, 2012.