WHY CARE ABOUT ANIMALS?

People generally care about animals, but for different reasons. These differences reflect a lack of consensus concerning the status of animals in society and our duties, if any, toward them. Differences within and between cultures are also revealing. In spite of the complexities in how people regard animals and why they care -- or should care -- for animals, there is one critical factor that seems to be a cardinal indicator of our emotional and social (and some would say spiritual) development. This is the empathy factor. There are greater differences within than between cultures. For example, in the United States, I have seen and documented how the most calculated, deliberate cruelty toward animals has become institutionalized and defended by both government, scientists, and religious leaders to a degree unprecedented in other capitalist industrial nations like the U.K. and Germany.

And yet in the United States, animal protection organizations receive more public support financially than in any other country. The division between public (i.e. government) policy and public concern over how and why animals should be properly cared for is therefore greater, if not more evident, in the United States than in other countries. But by the same token, in some other developing countries where legal protection for animals is virtually non-existent or not enforced, we find widespread public indifference to animal suffering.

A nation having what some might believe to be the highest regard for animals -- seeing them as sacred and thus not to be harmed in any way like India's cows -- could actually cause more animals suffering than in cultures where animals and not deified. A better understanding of why people care for animals for different reasons can, I believe, help us work through these differences and establish a common ground of ethical consistency and compassion. This will be good for the animals and for we human beings and especially for our children whose attitudes and values are, to a large measure, acquired by the examples we adults set for them.

There are four basic kinds of relationships that people have with animals that differ considerably in terms of the degree of empathy and of respect for animals as individuals.

The first is purely utilitarian. It is common sense pragmatism to care properly for animals. The better a cow is treated, the more milk she will produce. This utilitarian attitude toward animals is reflected clearly in the language of animal care laws and regulations. The primary determinants of animals care relate to economic considerations, including prevention of communicable diseases, and consumer concerns over the safety and quality of meat and other animal products. This relationship with animals as objects of property and as commodities is clearly expressed in the letter of the law in the European Community where the animals have essentially the status of perishable goods. Several member countries are currently opposing attempts to change the wording of animal transportation regulations that would refer to animals as "sentient beings", thus elevating their status above that of mere commodities.

Treating animals as ‘things’, as a means to satisfy exclusively human ends, rather than being seen as ends in themselves with a life and interests of their own, is on a continuum with socipathic, biopathic, and psychopathic states of mind that share the common characteristic of lacking in empathy, feeling for others.

The next kind of relationship with animals represents a developmental step forward for society where empathy and compassion are regarded as human virtues. This is the humanitarian relationship, which forms the basis of animal welfare regulations and oversight committees to help insure that "unnecessary" animal suffering is avoided whenever practical and economically feasible. This is a step above the purely utilitarian that does, for example, justify the poisoning and trapping of coyotes and other predators to protect livestock. The humanitarian approach would be to find the most humane method of predator control, and find pigs or rats preferable alternatives to using primates in biomedical research.

The humanitarian relationship is in part based upon concern for our own humanity, because treating animals cruelly is a sign of bad character. Thus while the utilitarian relationship with animals is amoral, the humanitarian relationship is moralistic. When we demean or abuse animals, our humanity suffers.

Mahatma Gandhi observed "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Educators are recognizing today that animal cruelty in childhood is symptomatic of emotional problems, that if neglected can lead to psychopathology and crimes of violence at a later age. Hence, the importance of humane education and the promotion of compassion and reverential respect for all life is essential for the moral progress of society, and the ethical and empathic development of individuals.

Concern for how animal mistreatment reflects badly on the individual and on society has lead, over the past two centuries, to the establishment of animal welfare and protection organizations. These vary ideologically in terms of where they draw the line as to which species should not be killed or made to suffer and for what reasons suffering can be justified or deemed unnecessary and avoidable.

More recently, animal rights and liberation organizations have been established. These organizations are virtually unanimous in opposing all forms of animal exploitation that causes suffering, and some oppose any form of animal use. These organizations represent a more egalitarian, or libertarian, relationship with animals. It sees the humanitarian relationship as conservative and patronizing and the utilitarian relationship as unethical and chauvinistic.

This egalitarian relationship with animals is nonetheless anthropocentric since it is based on the concept of rights. While the intent is to have people care for animals for the sake of the animals, rights language is polemicizing, creating an arena wherein animals rights and interests are supposed to be accorded the same consideration as human rights and interests. While giving equal and fair consideration does not mean that humans have the same rights and interests as non-humans, most people who feel threatened by the notion of animal rights believe this to be true. True or not, in the process of stimulating much discussion and reflection, animal rights moves us one step further toward a more compassionate and reverential relationship with other animals.

Such a relationship I would call the communitarian relationship. There is a spiritual sense of communion with other sentient beings as members of the life community of the Earth and as all arising from the same creative process. The sanctity of all life is recognized as we step out of the circle of anthropocentrism to re-establish a mutually enhancing relationship, a symbiosis with all creatures. Kingship or dominion over animals give way to Kinship and reverential respect.

The communitarian avoids causing harm, either directly or indirectly, to other sentient beings. Those who, for ecological reasons, are "conscientious omnivores" rather than ethical vegetarians, eat little meat, eggs, and dairy products, and then only from animals who have been raised humanely on ecologically sound organic farms, ranches, and wild lands. Since highly nutritious foods of vegetable origin are readily available in most regions of the world, however, being a conscientious omnivore is an ethical and necessary step for all who are not vegetarian.

The "live and let live" philosophy of the communitarian does not mean that animals who are suffering and incurably ill or injured should not be humanely killed. Empathy with animals is the bridge for compassionate action. Compassion takes priority over ahimsa (the doctrine that forbids causing harm, injury, or death to sentient beings). The spiritual practices and politics of Janisim and Hinduism in India are flawed by anthropocentrism. They actually violate the principles of both compassion and ahimsa in those states where the slaughter of cattle for any purpose, including humane euthanasia, has now been made illegal.

As individuals, communities, institutions, and nation states, we have made considerable progress in becoming more humane and compassionate.

The major obstacles to be overcome are our attitudes toward other animals and our self-definition in terms of our duties toward them. They are not simply commodities, objects of property, subjects of patronage or a means to achieve our own financial or moral enhancement. They are our Earthly relations, more ancient if not wiser and closer to divinity in their ways than our own species. We have much to learn from them and we owe them much after millennia of exploitation and too often inhumane dominion. In their liberation from human chauvinism, ignorance, and insensitivity, lies our own liberation from anthropocentrism. As we develop individually and evolve culturally, a more egalitarian and ultimately a communitarian relationship will be established with the animal kingdom. This is an ethical and spiritual imperative for our species. If the state of the Earth today is a fair reflection of the state of humanity, then this imperative is also for our own survival and salvation.

In retrospect, when we link all the reasons why we humans care for animals, there is a clear developmental trend of increasing empathy and decreasing egotism and anthropocentrism. The more empathy, compassion and reverential respect we have for animals, the more they enrich our lives in a myriad of ways and the more human and humane we become in the process of caring for them, from the rabid dog to the old dry cow. This is the enlightened utilitarianism of Australian philosopher Peter Singer whose reasoned and dispassionate approach to liberating animals from human chauvinism and cruel dominion catalyzed a worldwide movement in the 1980's. This movement was close on the heels of the anti-nuclear, world peace, environmental, and human rights movements.

Today, these movements are beginning to coalesce and diffuse. There is now a growing Creation-based, eco-spiritual movement, parallel with the deep ecology, alternative holistic medicine, and communitarian movements. These are diffusing into the seminars and policy making forums of academia, government, and industry. A common ground, ethically and philosophically, is being laid as nation states begin to tackle such vital agenda items as biodiversity, sustainability, the human rights agenda, and the fate of the Earth and all her Nations.

In the final analysis, we should all take care of our home and family. There is only one home, the Earth, and only one family, all who dwell therein. This family includes all the animals, plants, and microorganisms on the land and in the waters of this planet.

From this eco-centric, Earth/Creation-centered communitarian perspective, the tight circles of anthropocentrism and egotism become the boundless circles of compassion and communion. In the process, we become increasingly cosmocentric, aware of our place in the Universe and in this Creation.

In summary, when we look at the reasons why we care for animals, we find that the more we care for them for their sakes, the more we liberate ourselves from the self-limiting realms of egotism and anthropocentrism. We then can experience the sanctity of all life, its sacred dimensions of co-evolving interdependence, transformation and self-realization; and celebrate our creative participation in the universe as we engage in the ever deepening inter-communion of life universal.