{"id":772068,"date":"2023-04-02T10:43:37","date_gmt":"2023-04-02T14:43:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=772068"},"modified":"2023-04-02T11:08:24","modified_gmt":"2023-04-02T15:08:24","slug":"animal-suffering-and-the-civilizing-process","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=772068","title":{"rendered":"THE DESCENT OF MAN: Animal suffering and the civilizing process"},"content":{"rendered":"\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

Can humanity consider itself civilised when analysing people\u2019s attitudes to non-human animals? This question is particularly evident when looking at human supremacy over the natural world and indifference to animal suffering that have persisted over many centuries.<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/blockquote>\n\n

ADRIANNA KAPEK-GOODRICH:<\/strong> Can humanity consider itself civilised when analysing people\u2019s attitudes to non-human animals? This question is particularly evident when looking at human supremacy over the natural world and indifference to animal suffering that have persisted over many centuries. In the West, the right to exploit animals was initially justified through the Judeo-Christian tradition that maintained the notion that animals do not have souls. It was further established by the perception that humans alone were created in God\u2019s image, therefore the concept of treating animals instrumentally was perceived as part of the divine plan.<\/em><\/p>\n

Yet, the main Christian doctrine ignored numerous texts and teachings that required a more considerate approach to animals. For example, a passage from Genesis (1:26-28) was interpreted as the main source of human right to rule the natural world: \u2018Let them have dominion over the fish in the sea, and over the birds in the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth\u2019. Although such a selective textual interpretation of the Bible has been widely criticised, the anthropocentric worldview prevailed.<\/em><\/p>\n

Stemming from this notion, centuries of compassion shortcomings towards animals and their suffering ensued. Therefore, this article considers and analyses shifts in European approaches to non-human animals throughout the centuries by using Norbert Elias\u2019 theory of the civilizing process. It extends Elias\u2019s arguments on the development of civilized sensibilities towards the natural world and human-animal relations. Key debates on the moral status of animals, transformation of European legislation, rise of environmental activism, and activities of animal welfare non-governmental organisations (NGOs) form the main argument of this article \u2013 that people\u2019s attitudes to non-human animals are ambivalent more than ever before. <\/em>SOURCE…<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

RELATED VIDEOS:<\/p>\n