Claim: It's ok to hurt animals because they are just biological machines without souls


The claim is that it's ok to hurt animals because God gave humans souls, and animals don't have souls. Morality doesn't come from any argument of consciousness, suffering, and well-being. Instead, it's only emergent from the existence of a soul in the subject.

Problems With This Argument

1. So is it ok then to torture animals deliberately?

If it's ok to hurt animals and we have absolutely no moral obligations towards them, then is it wrong to deliberately tie an animal in your basement and deliberately torture them?

If your answer is yes, then consider the following scenario: You're looking for a babysitter for your infant child and find one that seems promising but you learn that he or she is doing exactly this to an animal in their own basement. Would that be an encouraging piece of information to hear or make no difference?

On the other hand, if your answer is no, then where is your dividing line? Is it ok then to throw baby chicks alive into shredders? Is it ok to keep animals in tight cages and kill them long before their natural lifespan? Is there a line? And what is the justification for not treating them poorly at all if soul is a binary yes/no moral justification?

2. Eating meat still hurts other people and the environment

So it's not a reasonable defense as to why you get to hurt animals because they are not the only victims.

3. This is just another example of carnist presuppositionalism with human species as the criterion

And therefore all the same problems apply.

Markdown - (copy 📋)
Rich Text
[Claim: It's ok to hurt animals because they are just biological machines without souls](