PL EN


Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results
2016 | 49 | 2 | 335-345
Article title

Animal Rights Theology. Traditional vs Modern Paradigm

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
Christian teaching claims that animals, who are not humans, can’t be moral agents and have no rights. From this point of view “the idea to recognize that animals are equal to man, or that they have rights which should be respected by people, it is not acceptable by a Christianity”. Preachers conclude that constant debate on animal rights is an attempt to disguise the sad truth that human rights are not appreciated. The author of this contribution, as a strong believer in spiritual dignity of every living creature, advocates animals rights and concepts of unity of human and animals suffering in light of animal theology. The article presents two opposite views on animals in philosophy and culture- traditional and modern animal theology. Nowadays animal corporeality should not be understood in utilitarian way. Some theologians postulate changing the definition of animal soul, moreover, they claim that animals live in continuous relationship with God (Hagencord, Linzey).
Year
Volume
49
Issue
2
Pages
335-345
Physical description
References
  • [1] Genesis 1. 25-28. (Scripture passages have been taken from Revised Standard Version Catholic Bible, Oxford University Press, 2008).
  • [2] R. Bauckham, Living With Other Creatures. Green Exegesis and Theology, (2011), pp. 4-5.
  • [3] C. J. Adams, “What about Dominion in Genesis”, in: A Faith Embracing All Creatures. Addressing Commonly Asked Questions about Christian Care for Animals, eds. Tripp Your and Andy Alexis-Baker, Eugene, (2014), p. 2.
  • [4] Genesis 9. 1-3
  • [5] M. E. Berry, “What about Animal Sacrifice in the Hebrew Scriptures?” in: Faith Embracing All Creatures, p.31.
  • [6] Isaiah 1; 11-13; 66:3
  • [7] R. D. Ryder, Victims of Science, London, (1983) p.3. The author characterizes the conventional prejudice against nonhumans as “speciesism”, drawing the parallel with similar forms of irrational discrimination such as racism, sexism, and ageism.
  • [8] C. Camosy, For love of Animals. Christian Ethics, Consistent Action, Cincinnati, (2015), p. 16.
  • [9] D. M. Jones, The School of Compassion. A Roman Catholic Theology of Animals Gloucester, (2009), p. 17.
  • [10] M. Cohen, “Aristotle On the Soul”, last modified March 6, 2015, accessed 10 February, 2016, https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/psyche.htm
  • [11] D. Jones, The School of Compassion, p. 13.
  • [12] H. Lorenz, “Ancient Theories of Souls”, last modified April 22, 2009, accessed 15 March, 2016, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-soul/
  • [13] Jones, The School of Compassion, 23.
  • [14] Lucas Siorvanes, “Porphyry”, Islamic Philosophy. From the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, last modified 1998, accessed 3 April, 2016, http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/A093
  • [15] Eyjólfur Emilsson, “Porphyry”, last modified 10 June, 2015, accessed 15 April, 2016, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/porphyry/
  • [16] Major C. W. Hume, The Status of Animals In the Christian Religion (London: The Universities Federations For Animal Welfare, 1956), 86.
  • [17] Hume, The Status of Animals In the Christian Religion, 10.
  • [18] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, ET by the English Dominican Fathers (New York: Benzinger Brothers, 1918), Part II, Question 64, Article 1.
  • [19] A. Linzey, “Christian Theology and Animal Rights”, accessed 10 October, 2015, http://www.shapworkingparty.org.uk/journals/articles_89/6_Linzey.pdf, 2.
  • [20] [20] E. Sanderson Haldane and G. R. Thomson Ross, Discourse on Method in Philosophical Works of Descartes, London,(1950), Vol.2, format of e-book, pp. 115-118.
  • [21] A. Linzey, Christian Theology and Animal Rights ,p.3.
  • [22] P. H. Santmire, The Travail of nature: the ambiguous ecological promise of Christian theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,1985), p. 94.
  • [23] R. P. McLaughlin, Christian Theology and the Status of Animals, New York: (2014) , p. 11
  • [24] D. Jones, The School of Compassion. A Roman Catholic Theology of Animals, p. 35.
  • [25] Saint Augustine, The City of God, ed. and trans. M. Dods, Peabody, 2009, p. 42.
  • [26] A. Linzey, Animal Theology, Chicago, (1994), p. 155.
  • [27] A. Linzey, Animal Theology, p. 13.
  • [28] Elder Porphyrios http://orthodoxyandanimals.tumblr.com/, accessed 6 May, 2016.
  • [29] D. Jones, The School of Compassion. a Roman Catholic Theology of Animals, p. 9.
  • [30] D. Jones, The School of Compassion. A Roman Catholic Theology of Animals, p. 14.
  • [31] Psalms 19: 1-3; 97: 6; 98: 7-8; 148.
  • [32] B. E. Rollin, Putting the Horse before Descartes. My Life’s Work on Behalf of Animals Philadelpia, (2011), pp. 50-51.
  • [33] Krzysztof Tomasz Konecki, Ludzie i ich zwierzęta. Interakcjonistyczno-symboliczna analiza społecznego świata właścicieli zwierząt domowych , Warszawa, (2005), p. 40.
  • [34] Konecki, Ludzie i ich zwierzęta, p. 65.
  • [35] A. Schweitzer, Out of My Life and Thoughts, trans. A. Lemke, London, (1998), p. 40.
  • [36] [36] A. Bieniasz, „Kategoria odpowiedzialności w myśli Alberta Schweitzera”, Problemy ekorozwoju, Lublin: Nr 2 (2006), p.116.
  • [37] Psalm 50: 7-15.
  • [38] A. Linzey, “Animal Rights: A Reply to Oliver Barclay”, Science and Christian Belief, 76(10) (1993) 15-17.
  • [39] A. Linzey, “The Ethical Case Against Fur Farming” [summary], Environmental Values, 12(3) (2003) 269-70.
  • [40] A. Linzey, ‘The Divine Worth of Other Creatures: A Response to Reviews of Animal Theology’, Review & Expositor, 102(1) (2005) 111-124.
  • [41] Z. Weisberg, “The Simple Magic of Life”: Phenomenology, Ontology, and Animal Ethics, Humanimalia, 7(1) (2015).
  • [42] R. Iveson, “Deeply Ecological Deleuze and Guattari: Humanism’s Becoming-Animal”, Humanimalia, 4(2) (2013).
  • [43] J. Johnson, “Humanely Killed”, Journal of Animal Ethics, 5(2) (2015) 123-125.
  • [44] R. L. Austin and C. P. Flynn, “Traversing the Gap between Religion and Animal Rights: Framing and Networks as a Conceptual Bridge”, Journal of Animal Ethics, 5 (2) (2015) 144-158.
  • [45] L. Cox and T. Montrose, “How Do Human-Animal Emotional Relationships Influence Public Perceptions of Animal Use?” Journal of Animal Ethics, 6(1) (2016) 44-5
  • [46] L. Johnson, “The Religion of Ethical Veganism”, Journal of Animal Ethics, 5(1) (2015) 31-68.
Document Type
article
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.psjd-b3064f1a-3be2-491d-ae54-b2b9922defd9
Identifiers
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.