There are several specific verses that deserve the attention of anyone interested in Biblical animal rights. Exodus 23:4-5 goes so far as to demand that one not ignore the plight of a donkey or ox that belong to one's enemies, with Deuteronomy 22:1-3 extending this command to apply to any animal belonging to one's neighbor. Later in Deuteronomy 22, Mosaic Law even commands that one not take both a mother bird and its children simultaneously (22:6-7). It is also worth noting that Proverbs 12:10 overtly says that one sign of moral character is how one treat's one's animals. These passages alone establish that the Bible regards animals as having the right to not be ignored, neglected, or treated with gratuitous harshness, especially if they are a farm animal or pet that belongs to someone nearby. It is an enormous mistake to think that the Biblical God is unconcerned with how animals, both domestic and wild, are treated.
It would likewise be a mistake, however, to conclude that the Bible's explicit condemnations of animal abuse mean that the abuse of humans and that of animals are morally equivalent, as if there is no distinction in the metaphysical value of each category of beings (yes, animal can be defined to include humans, but here I use the word animal to refer to non-human biological creatures). Mosaic Law clarifies that to equate the two is indeed erroneous. Only humans bear the image of God, after all. For instance, the needless killing of an animal is not prescribed the same punishment assigned to the murder of humans (Exodus 21:12-14). Furthermore, stealing an animal is punished by financial means or by temporary servitude (Exodus 22:1-3), whereas the abduction of a person is to be followed by capital punishment (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7).
The only major example of the same punishment being given to a specific abuse of either humans or animals is the death penalty being attached to the rape of a human (Deuteronomy 22:25-27) and to bestiality (Exodus 22:19), which is ultimately the rape of an animal that cannot verbally provide consent. That is not to say that the nonconsensual nature of bestiality (in at least most cases) is the only reason why it is Biblically immoral; it is simply the case that it is a major aspect of bestiality that needs to be acknowledged. When it comes to nonsexual forms of physical abuse or mistreatment, though, Mosaic Law clearly distinguishes between the severity of crimes against animals and those against other humans, including in the aforementioned examples of theft and murder.
There is a nuance to the Biblical stance on animal rights that is so often ignored by many who identify as Christians. On one hand, conservative Christians are usually not consistent or thorough in their positions on animal treatment, tending to take a reactive stance on animal abuse; on the other hand, liberal Christians tend to overestimate the significance of animals within the Christian worldview. Animals, like other humans, seem to be sentient beings (with Biblical ethics revolving around phenomenology [1]), and the Bible's prohibition of certain forms of animal treatment demonstrate that the Christian stance on animal rights is that animals do indeed have rights--but rights that are distinctly not as important as those of the only species that bears God's image.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-relationship-between-consciousness.html
No comments:
Post a Comment