An op-ed in today's NYT discusses the issue of humane treatment of animals, especially farm animals destined for slaughter and human consumption. The author, Nicolette Hahn Niman, draws upon her personal experience to make the key point:
As a cattle rancher, I am comfortable raising animals for human consumption, but they should not be made to suffer. Because we ask the ultimate sacrifice of these creatures, it is incumbent on us to ensure that they have decent lives.
She does not provide the full philosophical reasons for treating animals humanely, which could include a religiously-inflected notion of respect for God's creatures (think St. Francis) or a rationalist utilitarian analysis along the lines of Peter Singer. There may be other bases for animal rights, or at least humanity toward animals, in Western philosophy, but the point I want to make here is the contrast with ancient Chinese philosophy. Simply put: animals have a harder time of it in both Taoism and Confucianism.
To the question, "should animals be treated humanely?," a Taoist might answer "yes," but would not be surprised by, and might not intervene in the face of, cruelty towards animals. On the one hand, Taoism affords equal respect to all things in Way. All thing move as "one and the same" and each thing has its place and worth in Way. One of my favorite Chuang Tzu quotes suggests as much:
...the real is originally there in things, and the sufficient is originally there in things. There's nothing that is not real and nothing that is not sufficient.
Hence, the blade of grass and the pillar, the leper and the ravishing beauty, the noble, the sniveling, the disingenuous, the strange - it Tao they all move as one and the same. In difference in the whole; in wholeness is the broken. Once they are neither whole nor broken, all things move freely as one and the same again. (23)
From that sentiment it would follow that animals should be afforded the same sort of respect that humans enjoy. It could also imply that humans should not be granted any treatment or consideration different than anything else, animals included. A radical, naturalist egalitarianism is suggested.
But that just establishes the idea of equal consideration and (perhaps) treatment. It does not tell us that humane treatment should be pursued. And this excerpt from passage 5 of the Tao Te Ching has an ominous tone to it:
Heaven and earth are Inhumane:
they use the ten thousand things like straw dogs.
And the sage too is Inhumane:
he uses the hundred-fold people like straw dogs.
The authors here are telling us that the world does not work the way Confucians, who pursue an idealized Humanity, want it to work. Bad things can happen to any species (the "ten thousand things" include all species); fate can turn abruptly against anything in seemingly cruel and capricious ways. The "straw dogs" reference signifies sacrificial items that are thrown away at the end of a ceremony.
This suggests that any standard of "humanity" or "humane treatment" is a human-created idea that is not reflected in the natural unfolding of Way. The passage could be interpreted as saying: don't attempt to apply a notion of morality or humanity to the world, because the world has its own logic that is not driven by moral standards. Better just to stand back and let Way unfold, because to attempt a moral intervention might bring unanticipated negative consequences. Hence the "sage," too, is "inhumane."
Bottom line: the amoral neutrality of Taoism obstructs it from producing a clear and strong rejection of cruelty to animals. I think the previous point about the essential equality of all things would lead Taoists to dislike cruelty to animals, to see it as wanton and unnecessary, but could they, by the standards of their own philosophy, purposely work against it?
Things are even worse for animals under Confucianism. Here are two passages from the Analects:
As the ceremony had fallen into neglect, Adept Kung wanted to do away with sacrificing sheep to announce a new moon to the ancestors. The Master said: "You love sheep, Kung, but I love Ritual." (3.17)
One day the stables burned down. When he returned from court, the Master asked: "Was anyone hurt?" He didn't ask about the horses. (10.11)
Confucius clearly considers animals a lower moral order than humans. Indeed, I think he might be uncomfortable with using the term "humane" to describe treatment of animals. Humanity - and by implication humaneness - is an ideal specific to the human realm. It is the highest moral goodness that can come from our human sociability. We do not find our humanity in our relationships with animals.
This is not to say that Confucius would positively support inhumane treatment of animals. He, too, would be uncomfortable with unnecessary cruelty. But, on the other hand, his philosophy does not provide for a positive defense of animals. They are secondary in his mind to humans, and if they need to be sacrifice for human purposes, so be it.
Now, I don't want to make too much of St. Francis and too little of the Chinese ancients. Francis, too, would likely have seen nature as something God provided for human purposes. But the figure and life of Francis gives us a powerful model for the humane and loving care of animals. By contrast, Taoism and Confucianism do not provide such a clear ideal. There is more in Taoism than Confucianism to develop a respectful stance toward animals, but both leave the door open, to a greater degree than Francis or Singer, to tolerating inhumane treatment of animals.
On animals, then, I follow Francis. Or maybe I have something wrong here. Comments are encouraged and welcomed.....
UPDATE: Sullivan notices this story as well...
The middle eastern religions sound like hell on earth. If there is no distiction in the inhumane treatment of animals versus humans, then it would be ok for someone to skin a human alive, as is done to animals. And we wonder why they don't care about the poisoned dog and cat food, poisoned prescription drugs they sell, and the lead paint on toys, by which they poison little children. I guess in a country where it is ok to do those things to humans, animals don't have a chance. To hell with China and their products. I want nothing to do with such humans. They are not fit to trade with or anything else, for that matter.
Posted by: Linda Nowicki | May 06, 2008 at 08:43 PM
Why folow any of these people, everyone can make mastakes, he he. Just because they are of old, does not mean they are wize. Find your own way.
D.Grant
Posted by: David | January 16, 2011 at 08:09 PM
Which chapter is the Zhuangzi quote from? http://ctext.org/zhuangzi
Thanks!
Posted by: Hannah | January 03, 2012 at 04:50 AM
Hannah,
Chapter 2. The translation I use is David Hinton's (p. 23). Here's the Chinese from ctext:
可乎可,不可乎不可。道行之而成,物謂之而然。惡乎然?然於然。惡乎不然?不然於不然。物固有所然,物固有所可。無物不然,無物不可。故為是舉莛與楹,厲與西施,恢恑憰怪,道通為一。
Posted by: Sam | January 03, 2012 at 08:49 AM