2.4. History of human-animal relations

According to modern estimates, the dog was domesticated approximately 20 000 years ago and even travelled along humans in the first migration to America 15 000 years ago. The first animals used for the production of meat were also domesticated nearly 10 000 years ago. After the domestication, people have had more and more diverse relations to animals, as the animals have become a part of human communities. Therefore, the reasons that caused the closer connections between humans and other species were initially highly instrumental. Even though there is no way of knowing what ancient humans thought of their relations with animals, we can consider if the instrumental nature of the relations can also explain the later stages of animal relations. In order to understand this, we will now travel to a time in history during which conversations were already recorded in writing. This enables us to examine the views and thoughts of the humans of the time. The time in question is the time when philosophy originated.

Inferior beings?

The idea that humans are separate from and superior to (other) animals is deeply ingrained in Western cultures and has deep roots in Western philosophy. One of the most essential tasks of philosophy has always been to investigate and clarify the fundamental nature of the world and its inhabitants, and even in ancient times, one of the central questions was “what makes humans human?” While answering this, many philosophers drew strong lines between humans and animals. 

For example, Aristotle (approx. 384–322 BC) believed in a hierarchy of creatures in which the natural objective of inferior beings was to serve higher beings. What separated humans from animals was reason, which enabled them to “surpass animality” and made humans (or more precisely, white men – Aristotle considered women and slaves to be of inferior ability) the most advanced beings on Earth. Aristotle also used this as the basis for arguing that animals only exist for the use of humans. For him, it was perfectly justified to utilise animals because they did not possess reason.

The Stoic philosophy of Ancient Greece and Rome, which focused on achieving peace of mind and controlling emotions, also did not consider animals to have any rights because they were not considered to have reason. For Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), the distinction between the human and the animal concerned the soul: because of their reason and their soul, the human had the right to take advantage of other beings. Many philosophers carried on this Christian tradition that did not consider animals having a soul.

Then again, even some ancient philosophers advocated the rights for the moral consideration of animals. Pythagoras (approx. 580–550 BC) condemned violence towards both humans and animals. Plutarch (approx. c. AD 46 – after AD) wrote about animals, and his essay On the Eating of Flesh, which has been translated to several languages, including Finnish, is the oldest moral philosophic essay on eating animals. The work highlights both the bodily nature and perishability of animals as well as their ability to live, move and feel: 

In the philosophy of René Descartes (1596–1659), who is considered the founder of modern Western philosophy, the human is placed above other beings because of their ability for rational thinking. In the philosophy of the time, it was particularly important to make a strong distinction between the mind and the body, and reason (i.e., a mind capable of rational and logical thinking) was something that only humans had. The most famous words of Descartes are: “I think, therefore I am.” Even though Descartes believed animals could feel, he considered those emotions merely mechanical and purely subconscious reactions that neither require nor indicate an ability to think.

It is easy to understand that if animals are only seen as machine-like objects, they will only be given instrumental value. The tradition stemming from Aristotle, Aquinas and Descartes, in which the cognitive abilities (related to thinking and observation) of animals were doubted and the value given to animals was based on this “deficiency”, still lived strong in the philosophy of the 20th century. Typically, the inability to use language was considered the deficiency of animals, and only humans that are capable of individual thinking and moral deeds have been deemed valuable. This stems from Immanuel Kant's (1724–1804) thoughts that moral deeds and rationality (i.e., the ability to think rationally) are the basis for the value of a being.

Advocates of animals

According to some philosophers, the lack of a moral status did not mean that animals could be treated whichever way. The great German philosopher Immanuel Kant stated that one should not mistreat animals because it reveals something of human nature. Cruelty, even towards animals, feeds the cruelty in a person. Kant’s thinking is sometimes called the source for modern humanism, and the same idea is often apparent in anthropocentric humanism: even though animals are not considered as having moral value in themselves, the essential nature of humanism sets limits on how they can be treated.

As the example on wolves in chapter 1.1 indicated, there are also cultural conceptions related to animals: some are considered good, others evil. Some animals have been viewed as the manifestations of the Devil, and even today, rats, snakes, and wolves, for instance, are associated with such negative conceptions. On the other hand, in Finnish traditional culture and elsewhere, powerful animals such as the bear have been revered as holy.

Then again, the philosophy of the new age also included viewpoints on the value of animals and human-animal relations that were outside the mainstream. Renaissance philosopher Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592) opposed suffering and demanded that people should also feel sympathy towards animals. Montaigne challenged the evaluation of animals through their language or thinking abilities (or lack thereof). It was more important to acknowledge that animals could feel. Later, Voltaire (1694–1778) also emphasised the ability of animals to feel.

Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), known as the founder of the movement of ethics which concentrates on the consequences of actions, his follower John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) as well as empiricist and natural philosopher David Hume (1711–1776) were also advocates for animals. Like Montaigne and Voltaire, Bentham and Mill also emphasised the ability of animals to feel (above all, suffer) as a guiding principle on the treatment of animals. Hume, on the other hand, acquainted himself with new ideas of evolution which significantly affected his conceptions of animals. Hume appealed to animals’ ability to think and called animals reasoning beings like humans: there were differences in the intellects of humans and other animals, but the differences were not categorical but gradual. During Romanticism, the wild freedom of animals was also admired. Francis of Assisi, who is known as the founder of the Franciscans, appreciated animals to the degree that he preached to both humans and animals. Thus, he has been named as the Catholic Church's patron saint of animals and ecology.

The ideas on the value of animals are historically constructed, i.e., they have developed into their current form over centuries, even millennia. They significantly affect what kinds of animal treatment and animal relations are considered appropriate. In a similar fashion, they are culturally constructed, i.e., they are connected with certain cultures and their prevailing world views: for example, in Buddhist culture, there is no similar separation between humans and animals as there is in Western thinking. Statement that encourage vegetarianism and good treatment of animals can be found in Buddhist texts. Even though Islam is associated with ritual slaughter, animals are appreciated in Sufism, a mystic form of Islam, and neither the Quran nor the oral tradition of Muslims always draw a clear line between human and animal. In ancient Egypt, some animals were appreciated to the degree that they were worshipped as gods. It is also worth mentioning that in animism, the world's oldest belief system and the one with the widest area of influence, animals and other natural beings were and still are considered spiritual beings.

In science, the evolution theory by Charles Darwin (1809–1882) indicated as early as the 19th century that humans are a part of a continuum of species and not separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. The theory of evolution also challenges the idea that the human is the pinnacle of evolution, because evolution does not shape species hierarchically: humans are just one species among many others.

In Western countries, the idea of humans above animals probably stems from the very idea that humans are seen as somehow more perfect and more capable of thinking than animals, which makes them more morally able – and places humans in a contrasting and superior position in relation to other animals. On the other hand, animals are seen as prisoners of their mechanical instincts, or at least as possessing significantly lesser mental abilities than humans. Consequently, there is a tendency to define humanity in relation to animals: a human is that which an animal is not and, in a manner of speaking, which an animal cannot reach. This way of thinking originates from early ancient philosophy.

Image. A grey mottled cat looks directly at the camera with its yellow eyes, its fluffy tail pointed upwards. (Photo by Maria Teneva on Unsplash. Free to use under the Unsplash License.)

Towards animal philosophy

Later, however, scientific research has shown that animals are feeling beings with diverse cognitive abilities. Research has shown that ravens are able to decipher when another raven knows something they do, such has the hiding place of a treat. This has been demonstrated in research by the ravens quickly digging up the treat that they saw being observed by another raven. A treat that has not been seen by other ravens has been saved for later use. Research has also indicated that dolphins can recognise words and simple sentences formed from them. Therefore, there is not a solid foundation for separating humans from other animals based on emotions or cognitive abilities. Other animals have various abilities that are traditionally only considered to be possessed by humans, and also abilities that humans do not possess at all. Have you ever stopped to compare the constructs of humans to those of, say, birds, insects, or spiders?

In animal philosophy, linguistic or cognitive abilities have not been considered as acceptable measures for the value of a being. The most famous philosophers of modern animal ethics, Peter Singer and Tom Regan, argued that the moral consideration of animals is our duty because animals can feel suffering and pleasure, and because they experience life, i.e., they are experiential beings. Philosopher Elisa Aaltola also proposes that the basis for the value of a being should simply be their ability to “experience reality as something”. Additionally, considering complicated cognitive abilities as the measure of moral value also excludes many groups of people, for example, small children or severely mentally disabled people, from the circle of morally valuable beings. The reason for moral value must be somewhere else than in linguistic or cognitive abilities.

The instrumental treatment of animals and them being used, for example, in the industrial mass production of food is often also justified as being natural. Aaltola (2013, 15), however, foregrounds the problems of the term ‘natural’: 

Aaltola highlights an example of how both vegetarianism and eating meat can be justified by their naturalness: someone who eats meat can refer to the hunter past of the human species while a vegetarian can emphasise the forager background. It is also quite easy to come up with examples of “natural” behaviour that we still do not consider morally acceptable just because they are natural: for example, violence has been a natural part of many human societies through history.

Humans are moral beings that can feel empathy towards other animal species and are able to take responsibility for their actions: humans understand the difference between right and wrong and acting accordingly is an important part of being human. The branch of philosophy that concentrates on the ethical treatment of animals, animal philosophy, was created from the need to re-examine the ways of defining and treating animals that we are accustomed to consider as obvious and natural. It also considers how the ethics of animal treatment can be justified without conflicting with other beliefs we consider important. 

Since the 1970s and 80s, animal philosophy has been a growing field of research and discussion. There are many different viewpoints within it, but nearly all share the same view that limiting moral value to humans only cannot be justified by any acceptable criteria. One shared view in animal philosophy is that the current Western mass production system of meat cannot be justified. 

From anthropocentric philosophy towards animal philosophy

Animal ethics was created in the 1970s. It is a branch of philosophy that investigates the moral value of animals and how humans should treat animals. Animal Liberation (1975) by Australian author Peter Singer is considered the initiator of animal ethics. In the book, Singer examines modern phenomena such as the conditions of test animals in laboratories and criticises the view in which animals only have instrumental value (see Franklin 2005). Animal ethics has applied many different theoretical traditions of ethics (virtue ethics, consequentialism, deontology, and social contracts) to discuss not just humans but sentient animals in general. Later, the discussion has extended from moral philosophy to broader philosophical questions on animals. This has led to the more extensive discussion of animal philosophy, rather than or in addition to animal ethics.

One of the most famous philosophers of the 20th century, Jacques Derrida (1903–2004) criticised contrasting humans with “the animal” which reduces a great number of different beings into one bunch. Many species of animals are consequently only defined against humanity, which, for example, prevents humans from facing animals as individuals. In animal philosophy, one way to avoid this contrast has been to not merely discuss “humans” and “animals” but to use “other animals” or “non-human animals” instead. This manner of discussions has subsequently become popular in other fields of research as well. On the other hand, animals may still be considered as “one lot”, or they may be directly classified through their prevailing relationship with humans: there are pets, farmed animals, pests, and wild animals. This kind of classification is sometimes thought to justify the different treatments of these animals: pets are members of the family, whereas farmed animals are sources of nutrition.

Currently, the cultural and societal role of animals remains instrumental. Even though pets are admired and loved, even them are also utilised to advance the well-being of humans. Even keeping pets has been criticised in discussions on animal rights. The life of a pet does not necessarily enable the animal to live a species-specific life. Most mammals have indeed been harnessed to be used by humans: the mass of mammals (such as cows, sheep, and pigs) that are raised for the production purposes of humans is 23 times more than the mass of wild animals.

Would you like to comment something on this section? Voluntary.