Charles Camosy’s new book argues that we should treat animals with the same Christian justice that underlies our treatment of other people. But human beings and other animals are n
This chapter examines Aquinas’ understanding of both the similarities and differences between human and non-human animals. In order to do so, I will examine what Aquinas has to say
A signature theme of the new vision of ethics proposed by Peter Singer, DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, is the principle of equal consideration. In brief, th
Is there something distinctive about humanity that justifies the idea that humans have moral status while non-humans do not? Providing an answer to this question has become
It is now widely assumed that all and only human beings merit full moral consideration, that human interests count for more than similar interests of other creatures. Thus, if a hu
In some Eastern systems of thought, animals are accorded great respect. The Jains of India hold that all life is sacred, drawing no sharp distinction between human and nonhuman lif
Laudato Si’, mi’ Signore” – “Praise be to you, my Lord”. In the words of this beautiful canticle, Saint Francis of Assisi reminds us that our common home is like a sister with whom
The fundamental message of Sacred Scripture proclaims that the human person is a creature of God (cf. Ps 139:14-18), and sees in his being in the image of God the element that char
The question of whether non-human animals have rights, and if so how extensive those are, turns on the issue of what gives a subject ‘moral standing’. One view is that it relates to rationality, another is that it has to do with the capacity for suffering, a third that it is either of these, and/or other features (such as being created by God) that require moral consideration. The general idea is that some characteristic confers value on a being such that to harm it, without justification, is wrong. Until the 19th century most ethical thinking about animals tended to assume, or argue, that their lives were of very little or no intrinsic moral value but sometimes held that it was nevertheless wrong to treat them cruelly because this showed bad character and made it more likely than such a person would act cruelly to human beings also. With the rise of utilitarianism, however, especially in the work of Jeremy Bentham, which connected right and wrong to the cause or avoidance of suffering, people began to be concerned that harming animals is directly wrong. More precisely the idea is that in considering how to treat animals one has to take their welfare into account along with that of human beings. This would still allow for harm to be done to them, e.g. in scientific and medical experimentation, if it produced a greater overall benefit. Animal rights advocates counter that the right not to be harmed is inviolable.