Animal Rights and Christian Ethics

This assignment delves into the complex relationship between animal rights and Christian ethics. It encourages students to analyze biblical passages on animals, consider different interpretations of these texts, and evaluate ethical arguments for granting animals moral consideration within a Christian framework. The assignment prompts reflection on how Christian values like love, compassion, and stewardship might inform our understanding and treatment of animals.

Running head: Moral Status of Animal 0

Moral Status of Animals 1
Christian Ethics
2017
Moral status of animals

Moral Status of Animals 2
Re-evaluating Moral Status of Animals
There is a veil of ignorance when the discussion regarding barring the animals from moral
concern take place. The arguments on extensive animal exploitation and excluding animals from
the moral sphere of ethics have been doing the rounds since years. There is no proper scope of
moral obligations which are defined by philosophers and no justification has been given to the
idea of distinction between humans and animals. The theories are pounded on the concern and
divided in categories which are: direct but unequal theory and the moral equality theory. Another
theory named indirect theory are not considered in ethics as this theory deny the moral status of
animals by taming the reasons on lacking the consciousness and autonomy which resulted into
denying the consideration of animals in moral sphere (Lindsay, 2017).
In direct but unequal theory the harmonization of moral consideration to animals is supported but
not fully as the reasoning has been given the inability to respect other agent’s rights and moral
reciprocity in a community of agents having equal rights. This category consist of arguments
regarding mindful feel of animals not to cause direct harm to animals. The area where interests
of human and animals controvert is their own special properties of rationality, autonomy and
self-consciousness in humans which are considered of higher interests than animals (Jaworska,
and Tannenbaum, 2013).
Moral equality theory is about extending the equal consideration and moral status to animals by
giving moral relevance to the special properties mentioned above. There thought on moral
equalities extend up to the rights of animals and as they said on the grounds of capacities in
terms of physiological and mental are same (Berkman, and Deane-Drummond, 2014).
The re-evaluation of the moral status of animals by Christians which are becoming concerned
with the animal suffering in the way. The traditional view of Christians in relation to animal
suffering was not as good as it is today, in modern scenario Christians believe that the
unnecessary treatment of animals is morally wrong as per social code of conduct. The traditional
approach of Christians about the degradation of animals is that they say it is a law of universe
that animals should be eaten by others and the law is supported by reasons:
 The creation of animals by god is done in the way that humans are entitled to use them in
the way they want to;

Moral Status of Animals 3
 The distinctive inferiority of animals to human beings as humans have reasons and
animals don’t.
 Christian thoughts was human centric and animals are not considered on their own terms
(Wadell, 2016).
Modern Christian thoughts about moral status of animals is more of sympathetic approach
towards the rights and obligation of animals and their treatment by human beings. Even though
theologians doesn’t show any acceptance that animals have rights and obligations but
acknowledge the fact that few animals do display self-consciousness and awareness and deserve
moral consideration. Where some Christians believe that nature’s purpose of existence is to serve
humans and others accept that humans must not exploit and dominate nature by its practices
rather show some respect and partnership. This thought of stewardship towards nature has
softened the attitudes of Christians to animals (Linzey, 2016).
Christian writers on moral status of animals have said that Christians should treat animals
according to the god’s intention for nature and not according to the usefulness to humans. Ethics
and Christianity when combined gives an approach of living in a world of harmony with animals.
As animals do deserve fair treatment because they does not have the capacity of moral agency
and only humans can enter into this category so the justification in this is provided by impartial
human who holds the designation in decision making and make moral reflection behind the
ignorance of humans in the treatment of animals (Miguel, 2014).
Animal suffering is the big issue and must be resolved, there are theories who would decide the
justice being done on animals. Humans must obey their duties towards animals and not treat
animals as if they do not have soul of their own. The theory of justice states the limits and
aspects of morality and conduct towards animals. Each person or animal should have their own
freedom and moral rules to abide by but those moral rules may not harm others in any way. The
treatment of animals becomes an area of enquiry which is not included in principles of justice but
consigned to the broader sense of morality where there are people who are free to make
perceptions of what is wrong and what is right with the minimal interference so the treatment of
animals comes in the light of more of an individual choice than the matter of justice (Puryear,
2016). One can perceive or conceptualize the commitment towards the well-being of animals but
this commitment cannot be imposed to others and must respect the conception made by other

Moral Status of Animals 4
that they carry of what is good and what is bad. The exclusion of animals was objected by animal
welfare, there opinion was that the animals do have interests and identity of their own so they
must be given moral consideration. There argue was to include some rational beings to act as
representatives of animals and protect their interests and work in favor of animal rights that they
should be given equally with human beings. The moral considerability of animals is a serious
matter of all and must came into existence to protect animals. The thought of distinguishing
humans and non-human animals possess a certain capacity known as personhood and this
capacity of personhood defines a category of morally considerable beings which co-extensively
related to humanity (DeGrazia, 2016). Personhood is the quality of being valuable and morally
considerable, every rational human or non-human animal exist and their existence not only
depends upon their purpose but pose a relative value of being. This practical identity of own self
is a significant moral identity and it gives the view of their own life as worth living. Non-humans
cannot act barely on the reasons of their practical identity from which they reflect their own self
(Tester, 2014).
Virtue ethics approach is about the direct duties towards animals, also there are indirect
responsibility of humans to act humanely by treating animals in ways it is meant to be which
shows a good disposition of character in humans. Animals on this side gets accorded by the
moral significance indirectly by virtue of qualities a human character shows up. The aspects of
virtue ethics in mistreatment of animals poses cruel and sadistic character and on the other hand
kind treatment of animals manifests a sympathetic character. A respectful treatment with animals
is indirectly virtuous in a sense that it not only allows humans to acquire a good character but
displays an image to treat fellow humans with respect and compassion. An act of displaying a
good character consist of a motive so in order to display good character one must carry a right
motive for an action. Where in some situations the work practices by humans in an environment
that suffering of animals cannot be stopped or done in order to protect their employment or
survival of themselves and their family altogether, the motive behind such action is the right
motive it does not portray a bad character of humans their actions are justified behind their
motive of survival (James, 2014).
People who are working in current practices where they cannot help but let the animal suffering
happen either for their employment purposes or making money to protect their family being a
responsible member who is the only earning person and feel their work is contributing in a good

Moral Status of Animals 5
side and benefitting them and the family. But this action of humans does not justify that the work
they do support the right motives or entitle them to follow the pursuits in order to achieve what
they want to. People do work in such practices of farming, animal research and experimentation
though the motive behind such practices are profits, employment and other benefits. These
motives or so called reasons are no justification to be involved such activities. Here the principle
of moral or equal consideration applies in which animal suffering and pain must be given
attention, respect and care to save their live and not let them suffer on the first part. As ethics
covers the approach for both the sides it can be said that animal suffering and pain can be
overridden if the interests are of more importance and weigh more. But the interest must be
moral ones rather money making or eating meat for pleasures. Argument has been dragged that
factory farming must be abolished as their experiments are unjust in the eye of ethics and moral
values therefore these acts must be phased out and bring into the moral consideration (Rollin,
2016).
Cruelty to animals is not permitted just because it creates jobs for people, animals suffering
cannot be permitted. Motives of employment and money making are not justifiable to disregard
the moral values of others. If the animal interest are not directly concerned with the morals then
in that case it is no virtue to treat the animals kindly. One needs to act in compassionate and kind
way when the interests are of moral importance, the interest here includes life interest and
interests which carry on suffering (Rowlands, 2013).
It can be said that there are instances where one can respect inanimate objects not because those
objects are of moral standing but the virtue of other beings. The object of moral concern is
showing respect and compassion, care to something is of great importance. The moral questions
about the ethical treatment of animals in scientific experiments and research for the jobs of
researchers seems as a threat and the threat is of commercial interests (Ryan, 2014). For
example, the young doctors who have reached an advancements in their professional carrier by
doing such animal experiments and research cannot say a thing about the abuse of laboratory
animals which they are keeping for many purposes in fear of bringing their career at stake. The
virtue of ethics says the right motive do justify the actions of a person but actions for the motive
of maintaining status and prestige does not count in it. The motives for experiments done on
animals for status and prestige does not come in the light of right motive but for attaining new
and beneficial knowledge in order to make progress in medical sciences may justify the act

Moral Status of Animals 6
(Sharpe, 2015). Some theologians may or may not support this statement of justification given by
researchers that the experiments are done for the progress of medical sciences, they may not
consider this as a virtuous activity.
The question whether Christians become vegetarians or not? As the moral status of animals
becoming the concern of more on animal suffering. Answer to this question carries many aspects
as there are numerous thoughts and opinions about the same. Bible verses about the killing of
animals that killing animals would be a problem and portrays animal cruelty but there is nothing
wrong with hunting for food in any case, cruelty is not an option instead people must be
responsible of what they do and use them to their advantage keeping in mind the virtue of the
activity (Chery, 2017). Mark 7:9 Jesus has declared all foods clean, one consumes food which
does not go into their heart but stomach and then out of their body. Luke 24:41-43 He himself
asked that is there anything that he can eat and people gave him broiled fish which he ate it. Luke
5:3-6 Jesus got into the boat ask Simon to lower the nets to catch fish (Villanueva, 2018).
But on the same hand Proverbs 12:10 the godly care for the animals and shows compassion
towards them but the wicked ones can show cruelty only. The whole theory and opinions shows
that humans may or may not be vegetarians or go vegan by not killing animals for the pleasure of
eating meat but their motive behind animal killing and suffering must be in light with the moral
consideration of animals. The care and compassion towards animals manifests a good character
of human beings, respect and moral or equal consideration must be given to animals in order to
define their moral status in the society (Atkinson, Field, Holmes, and O'Donovan, 2013).

Moral Status of Animals 7
References
Atkinson, D. J., Field, D. F., Holmes, A. F., and O'Donovan, O. (Eds.). (2013). New dictionary
of Christian ethics & pastoral theology. InterVarsity Press.
Berkman, J., and Deane-Drummond, C. (2014). Catholic Moral Theology and the Moral Status
of Non-Human Animals. Journal of Moral Theology, 3(2), 1-10.
Chery, F. (2017). 15 Important Bible Verses About Killing Animals. Bible Reasons. Available at:
http://biblereasons.com/killing-animals/ [Accessed 11 Nov. 2017].
DeGrazia, D. (2016). Modal personhood and moral status: A reply to Kagan's proposal. Journal
of Applied Philosophy, 33(1), 22-25.
James, S. (2014). The Role of Christian Ethics, Religious Leaders, and People of Faith at a Time
of Ecological and Climate Crisis.
Jaworska, A., and Tannenbaum, J. (2013). The grounds of moral status.
Lindsay, R. A. (2017). ANIMALS, MORAL STATUS, AND THE OBJECTIVES OF
MORALITY. Think, 16(47), 33-43.
Linzey, A. (2016). Christianity and the Rights of Animals. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
Miguel, A. (2014). Doing Christian Ethics from the Margins: Revised and Expanded. Orbis
Books.
Puryear, S. (2016). Sentience, rationality, and moral status: A further reply to Hsiao. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 29(4), 697-704.
Rollin, B. E. (2016). A Moral Science: Talking Point on the Use of Animals in Scientific
Research. The Animal Ethics Reader, 347.
Rowlands, M. (2013). Animal rights. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Moral Status of Animals 8
Ryan, T. (2014). The moral Priority of vulnerability and dependency: Why social work should
respect both humans and animals. In Animals in Social Work (pp. 80-101). Palgrave
Macmillan UK.
Sharpe, L. (2015). Creatures Like Us? A Relational Approach to the Moral Status of Animals.
Andrews UK Limited.
Tester, K. (2014). Animals and Society (RLE Social Theory): The Humanity of Animal Rights.
Routledge.
Villanueva, G. (2018). ‘The Bible’of the Animal Movement: Peter Singer and Animal
Liberation, 1970–76. In A Transnational History of the Australian Animal Movement,
1970-2015 (pp. 19-49). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Wadell, P. J. (2016). Happiness and the Christian moral life: An introduction to Christian ethics.
Rowman & Littlefield.