Q&A: Free Choice and Moral Responsibility Toward Animals
Free Choice and Moral Responsibility Toward Animals
Question
Hello Rabbi,
When we talk about morality in a materialist world, the following claim comes up: why should harming a person matter, if he is nothing more than a lump of atoms? What is the difference between him and a log of wood?
By contrast, in a dualist world, we attribute to a person a metaphysical component that grants him superiority over other lumps of atoms. From here comes the basis for humanism, in practice—at least as I understand it.
So I wanted to ask your view regarding a person's obligation toward animals. I am familiar with your opinion on veganism, and also with the great suffering involved in the animal-based food industry. So my question is: why? What is the justification for morality toward other animals?
Perhaps, in your view, morality itself is not derived from the dualist issue but from God? That is, in a world devoid of God and objective moral values, even harming a person (who has a soul) would have no significance?
I hope I was clear enough.
Thank you,
T.
Answer
A person has no obligation to animals because they do not have rights. But since they suffer, we have a duty not to cause suffering. That is our duty, not their right.
Therefore I also do not accept the claim that there is no duty not to cause suffering to a lump of atoms—unless the one causing it is also just a lump of atoms, in which case no moral obligations apply to him either.
And indeed, in my view, without God there is no moral obligation. See here on the site in the fourth notebook, part 3.