Do non-human beings have souls?
A lot of people claim that non-human beings don't have souls; many claim that the "proof" of this is that "animals don't know anything about God." The question is, just how the hell can they know such a thing?
For one thing, our ability to communicate with non-human creatures is at best minimal. We haven't learned how to communicate with whales, which have brains far larger than ours and may be much more intelligent than we are; and we've only managed to learn a very little about what their calls and cries signify. When it comes to the great apes, our closest relatives, we have been able to teach some of them American Sign Language, but among the questions we have put to them, I'll bet "Is there a God?" or "What are your beliefs about God/Gods?" are waaaay down on the list of Things to Ask Great Apes; and if we have asked them such questions, and their replies were in the negative, it is likely we didn't provide anywhere near enough context and background for the apes for them to really understand the questions.
For another, there is something called "qualia " that makes all such questions moot. 1) When it comes to questions involving noumenous ideas and beliefs, unless we are telepathic, it is impossible in most cases to know with any certainty whether the answers we get upon asking them of others are truthful or lies. 2) And unless we are telepathic, we cannot know with any certainty what a non-human being is thinking or feeling, aside from being able to tell from its obvious behavior that it is in distress, or happy, or angry, or any other state of mind and psyche. While some claim to be telepathic, it is almost impossible to know whether they are or not, save for a few exceptions, such as those tested with Zener cards and the like, or cases under Australian jurisprudence involving testimony by or about Australian aborigines ("We have no idea how they do it, but that can do it is incontestable" is a rock-hard principle of Australian law). In fact, as the philosopher Bertrand Russell pointed out, it is impossible to prove objectively that the universe, complete with you and all your memories, wasn't created only ten seconds ago. Objectively speaking, thanks to the principle of qualia and the lack of objectively provable indicators in more than a very few cases, we cannot truly know the mind of another human being, let alone any other type of creature.
Jewish law has long incorporated the principle of preventing, as much as possible, cruelty to animals, especially when it comes to caring for them and slaughtering them for their meat and hides. Kosher laws, especially the prohibition on mixing meat with dairy products, among other reasons, are based on the principle of causing as little distress to the animals whose flesh is to be consumed, and those that are used as work-animals or are pets, as possible. They imply that animals can feel pain and suffer in other ways, and strive to minimize such pain and suffering. Pain and suffering are mediated by the psyches, i.e., souls of creatures.
Under American law, the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is standard procedure. By the same token, perhaps we should assume "a being of any kind has a soul and knowledge of God until proven otherwise." It's very likely that those who protest otherwise couldn't stomach eating meat or using other animal-derived products without denial of that princple -- or that they adopt their stance in order to convince others to buy the meat and other foods they produce, buy other creature-derived products, and go along with their ruination of the habitats of wild creatures and their maltreatment of animals for business reasons. And, of course, those who conduct scientific experiments on animals, especially medical experiments, are made uncomfortable by the idea that their subjects are not just inanimate subjects, but feeling, aware beings that can strategize, interact socially with others of their own kind, and otherwise display all the signs of cognition, sentience, and even sapience. Sometimes, as when animals are experimented upon to try to derive cures or therapies for life-threatening and life-crippling diseases, including those to which humans as well as non-human beings are prone, it may be necessary to inflict suffering on experimental subjects -- but it should always be done with empathy and, eventually, heartbreak for the experimenter, a sharing of the suffering. Otherwise, it should be minimized or eliminated. And when it comes to habitat destruction and other acts that can lead to the extinction of species, as Peter D. Ward has said, what right do we have to kill such creatures?
So maybe it's time for us to admit that non-human creatures almost certainly have souls and even an awareness of God or Gods. The Hindus have a point, as do the Buddhists. Someday we will meet our first extraterrestrial visitors face-to-face. What if they assume we have no souls, and happily experiment on us, or slaughter us for our meat and hides, without a qualm or any regard for our terror, agony, and suffering?
For one thing, our ability to communicate with non-human creatures is at best minimal. We haven't learned how to communicate with whales, which have brains far larger than ours and may be much more intelligent than we are; and we've only managed to learn a very little about what their calls and cries signify. When it comes to the great apes, our closest relatives, we have been able to teach some of them American Sign Language, but among the questions we have put to them, I'll bet "Is there a God?" or "What are your beliefs about God/Gods?" are waaaay down on the list of Things to Ask Great Apes; and if we have asked them such questions, and their replies were in the negative, it is likely we didn't provide anywhere near enough context and background for the apes for them to really understand the questions.
For another, there is something called "qualia " that makes all such questions moot. 1) When it comes to questions involving noumenous ideas and beliefs, unless we are telepathic, it is impossible in most cases to know with any certainty whether the answers we get upon asking them of others are truthful or lies. 2) And unless we are telepathic, we cannot know with any certainty what a non-human being is thinking or feeling, aside from being able to tell from its obvious behavior that it is in distress, or happy, or angry, or any other state of mind and psyche. While some claim to be telepathic, it is almost impossible to know whether they are or not, save for a few exceptions, such as those tested with Zener cards and the like, or cases under Australian jurisprudence involving testimony by or about Australian aborigines ("We have no idea how they do it, but that can do it is incontestable" is a rock-hard principle of Australian law). In fact, as the philosopher Bertrand Russell pointed out, it is impossible to prove objectively that the universe, complete with you and all your memories, wasn't created only ten seconds ago. Objectively speaking, thanks to the principle of qualia and the lack of objectively provable indicators in more than a very few cases, we cannot truly know the mind of another human being, let alone any other type of creature.
Jewish law has long incorporated the principle of preventing, as much as possible, cruelty to animals, especially when it comes to caring for them and slaughtering them for their meat and hides. Kosher laws, especially the prohibition on mixing meat with dairy products, among other reasons, are based on the principle of causing as little distress to the animals whose flesh is to be consumed, and those that are used as work-animals or are pets, as possible. They imply that animals can feel pain and suffer in other ways, and strive to minimize such pain and suffering. Pain and suffering are mediated by the psyches, i.e., souls of creatures.
Under American law, the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is standard procedure. By the same token, perhaps we should assume "a being of any kind has a soul and knowledge of God until proven otherwise." It's very likely that those who protest otherwise couldn't stomach eating meat or using other animal-derived products without denial of that princple -- or that they adopt their stance in order to convince others to buy the meat and other foods they produce, buy other creature-derived products, and go along with their ruination of the habitats of wild creatures and their maltreatment of animals for business reasons. And, of course, those who conduct scientific experiments on animals, especially medical experiments, are made uncomfortable by the idea that their subjects are not just inanimate subjects, but feeling, aware beings that can strategize, interact socially with others of their own kind, and otherwise display all the signs of cognition, sentience, and even sapience. Sometimes, as when animals are experimented upon to try to derive cures or therapies for life-threatening and life-crippling diseases, including those to which humans as well as non-human beings are prone, it may be necessary to inflict suffering on experimental subjects -- but it should always be done with empathy and, eventually, heartbreak for the experimenter, a sharing of the suffering. Otherwise, it should be minimized or eliminated. And when it comes to habitat destruction and other acts that can lead to the extinction of species, as Peter D. Ward has said, what right do we have to kill such creatures?
So maybe it's time for us to admit that non-human creatures almost certainly have souls and even an awareness of God or Gods. The Hindus have a point, as do the Buddhists. Someday we will meet our first extraterrestrial visitors face-to-face. What if they assume we have no souls, and happily experiment on us, or slaughter us for our meat and hides, without a qualm or any regard for our terror, agony, and suffering?