ʻAND WHO IS MY NEIGHBOR?ʼ: READING ANIMAL ETHICS THROUGH THE LENS OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN Daniel Kyle Miller PhD Theology and Ethics The University of Edinburgh 2010 2 ABSTRACT In this thesis I argue that the major philosophical arguments in the field of animal ethics, as it has developed in the twentieth century, are inadequate without a robust theological foundation. While these arguments for greater moral respect for animals have acquired some cultural purchase in relation to systematic abuses of animals in factory farming and some forms of hunting, they lack the resources for articulating the many complexities inherent in human relationships with other animals. These positions, expounded most prominently by Peter Singer and Tom Regan, seek to extend to animals the moral frames of earlier Enlightenment thinkers and are thus bound by the same concerns and constraints; they therefore do not sufficiently problematise the modern distinction between humans and other animals that has advanced the modern mistreatment of animals to a degree of systematic cruelty unknown in human history. I argue that the Christian tradition has richer resources for articulating human moral relationships with other animals – and for problematising the modern framing of the human-animal distinction – than these secular theories possess on their own. This is by no means the first theological foray into the field of animal ethics. Previous theological accounts, however, still work predominantly within the confines set by secular philosophers. For example, Andrew Linzey clearly articulates his concept of “Theos-rights” for animals from within the conceptual framework of deontological categories. I will argue instead that a richer theological account of human relationships with other animals can be made by embracing the foundational love ethic found in Christianity. The Christian category of neighborly love represents a normative moral position in its own right rather than a simple addition to or reinterpretation of earlier consequentialist or deontological accounts. Using the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), I outline a theologically informed animal ethic in which animals are seen as potential neighbors. My argument proceeds in two stages. The first and largest section identifies and explores three themes key to interpreting the parable with a view toward animal ethics. First, I explore the theme of responsibility and employ the thought of Emil Brunner and Karl Barth in asking to what degree humans, as imago Dei, are responsible for their relationships with animals. Second, I argue for the importance of caring in human moral encounters with animals. Here, I explore the similarities and deficiencies of feminist theory in relation to the Christian concept of neighborly love. Third, I consider the moral relevance of nearness, or proximity, in human relationships with animals. Here, I outline the different responsibilities inherent in human relationships with wild, domestic working, and pet animals. After expounding these three themes, the second stage of my thesis employs them in critiquing two specific theological issues. I first compare the Christian concept of dominion over animals found in Genesis 1:28 with competing claims from Christian stewardship ethics and environmental land ethics. Then, primarily in conversation with Barth, I conclude with a discussion of the theological arguments for and against Christian vegetarianism. 3 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 5 CHAPTER 1: RESPONSIBILITY, IMAGO DEI, AND ANIMAL NEIGHBORS 31 1.1 ANIMAL RESPONSIBILITY? 32 1.1a Medieval Animal Trials 32 1.1b Animal Intentionality 37 1.1c The Knowledge of Good and Evil 45 1.2 THE IMAGO DEI AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY 51 1.2a Relational imago Dei and Animals 52 1.2b Human Responsibility and Animals 59 1.3 CONCLUSION 64 CHAPTER 2: ʻCARINGʼ FOR ANIMAL NEIGHBORS, PART 1 66 2.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE CARE PERSPECTVE 67 2.1a Key Figures and Characteristics 67 2.1b Relationship in Caring and Theological Ethics 70 2.1c Care and Dependency 73 2.2 CARE FOR ANIMALS, CONCERN FOR PLANTS 76 2.2a The “Receptive Mode” 77 2.2b Reciprocity 78 2.2c Two Criteria for a Reply? 80 2.2d Care and the Land? 83 2.3 HUMAN AND ANIMAL EMOTIONS 85 2.3a Emotional Continuity 86 2.3b Against a Kantian Rejection of Emotions 87 2.3c The Limits of Emotional Consideration 90 2.4 CONCLUSION 93 CHAPTER 3: ʻCARINGʼ FOR ANIMAL NEIGHBORS, PART 2 95 3.1 TWO LEVELS OF CARE: NATURAL AND ETHICAL 96 3.1a Natural Caring 97 3.1b Ethical Caring 98 3.1c Noddings and Nussbaum 100 3.2 CRITICISM AND RESPONSE 105 3.2a Extending Care to the Stranger 106 3.2b Good Samaritan Neighborly Care 108 3.2c Animal Neighbors and Animal Friends 113 3.2d Protective Animal Rights 116 3.3 CONCLUSION 120 CHAPTER 4: DRAWING NEAR TO ANIMAL NEIGHBORS 122 4.1 THE ETHICAL IMPORTANCE OF PROXIMITY 123 4.1a Similar Capacities ≠ Similar Care 123 4.1b Embodiment and Place 127 4.1c More than Physical Proximity 129 4 4.2 A TAXONOMY OF NEARNESS 136 4.2a Wild Animals 137 4.2b Domestic Animals 140 4.2c Pet Animals 147 4.3 CONCLUSION 154 CHAPTER 5: HUMAN DOMINION AND ANIMAL NEIGHBORS 156 5.1 DOMINION VS. SUBDUE 157 5.1a Fellow Living Creatures 158 5.1b Dominion (rada) 161 5.1c Subdue (kabas) 163 5.1d Dominion Between I and Thou 165 5.2 DOMINION, STEWARDSHIP, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS 167 5.2a Dominion and Christian Stewardship 168 5.2b Dominion and Environmental Land Ethics 170 5.2c Dominion and the Environmental Ethics of Holmes Rolston III 173 5.3 DOMINION AND THE GOOD HORSEMAN 176 5.3a Barth and the Biblical Distinction Between Animals and Plants 177 5.3b Barth, Buber, and Horses 178 5.4 CONCLUSION 180 CHAPTER 6: CHRISTIAN VEGETARIANISM AND ANIMAL NEIGHBORS 182 6.1 INTRODUCTION 183 6.2 HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY AND THE WAY OF THE JUNGLE 186 6.2a Human Respect for Life 187 6.2b Human Hunting and Animal Predation 190 6.2c The Killing Caveat 195 6.3 MEAT EATING AS “EXTREME CASE” (GRENZFALL) 201 6.3a Introduction to the Extreme Case 202 6.3b Grenzfall and the Problem of Killing Animals for Food in Barth 206 6.3c Grenzfall, War, and Vegetarianism 214 6.4 CONCLUSION 221 APPENDIX 225 1 Parable of the Good Samaritan 225 2 Interpreting the Image of God 225 3 Interpreting Dominion 230 4 Naming the Animals 234 5 Deut. 8:3 Photograph 238 BIBLIOGRAPHY 239 5 INTRODUCTION In a brief digression in his Histories, the ancient Greek historian Herodotus tells the tale of Arion and the dolphin. Arion, the famous poet and lyrist, boarded a boat journeying from Tarsus to Corinth. On the way, the sailors plotted to kill him and steal his money. After singing one last song, Arion jumped overboard into the sea. “But according to what they say, a dolphin took up Arion on its back and brought him to shore at Tainaron.”1 Arion then made his way to Corinth and confronted the shocked sailors when they arrived. In 2006 a beagle named Belle became the first nonhuman animal to receive the annual VITA Wireless Samaritan Award. This award recognizes individuals in the United States who use their “wireless phones to save lives, stop crime and help in other emergency situations.”2 Belle had received special training to recognize when her diabetic owner’s blood sugar dropped to dangerous levels and to respond. One morning when her owner slipped into a diabetic seizure, Belle retrieved his wireless phone and pushed the preprogrammed button to dial emergency medical services. “I am convinced that if Belle wasn’t with me that morning, I wouldn’t be alive today,” her owner claimed. “Belle is more than just a life-saver; she’s my best friend.”3 Narratives, whether based in fact or fiction, possess a unique ability to draw human attention to realities or individuals that other modes of thinking tend to overlook. While humans have long told stories where animals enjoy a place of prominence, until the twentieth century animals have been largely ignored by philosophical and ethical texts. Before this time period, philosophers and ethicists concerned themselves primarily with human-human relationships, or perhaps human-divine relationships. Human relationships with animals were treated on a largely piecemeal basis, if at all, and were often viewed as ancillary to those relationships truly 1 Herodotus, The Histories, Book 1.23-4, in The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories, ed. Robert B. Srassler, trans. Andrea L. Purvis (New York: Anchor Books, 2009), 16. Augustine refers to this story as proof of the credibility of the biblical story of Jonah. Augustine, City of God, Book 1.4, trans. Henry Bettenson (London: Penguin Books, 2003). 2 “Beagle Wins 2006 VITA Wireless Samaritan Award for Saving Owner's Life,” Wireless News (2006). http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-15413636_ITM (accessed Nov. 2009). This story is also referenced in Barbara Brown Taylor, “The Dominion of Love,” Journal For Preachers 31, no. 4 (2008): 27. 3 Ibid. 6 deserving our moral attention – those with other humans. In the twentieth century, however, we find a flowering of philosophical texts dedicated significantly, if not entirely, to the question of human moral relationships with animals. In this thesis I argue that, while these philosophical arguments for greater moral respect for animals have acquired some cultural purchase in relation to systematic abuses of animals in factory farming4 and some forms of hunting, they lack the resources for articulating the many complexities inherent in human relationships with other animals. The most prominent of these arguments, expounded by Peter Singer and Tom Regan, represent an extension of earlier Enlightenment moral frames and are thus bound by the same Enlightenment concerns and constraints.