Do Unto Others
The Golden Rule. Treat others how you’d like to be treated. Almost every culture in the world has a version similar to this and the only real variation is in the definition of who the ‘others’ are. In most primitive cultures, ‘others’ didn’t include the tribe over the mountain but, as we have formed larger and more inclusive societies, we are extending the boundaries of who qualifies as an ‘other’.
Most people reading this will likely have a boundary that now includes all humans. Some may extend this boundary to other animals capable of suffering to various degrees. Everyone I’ve met agrees that The Golden Rule is a good rule to live by but there are a large range of interpretations as to who the ‘others’ are.
A question I have is, should chimps and orangutans belong to this group we call ‘others’? What about other animals such as cows and sheep? Should we treat them as we would like to be treated? If not, why not?
This is a touchy topic and one I’ve given a bit of thought to over the last few years in examining whether I ought to become a vegetarian. In short, I still eat meat. I’ve decided that my boundary for ‘others’ is largely dependent on the issue of suffering. This is a fuzzy line however and roughly translates to an unwillingness to eat the meat of animals who, in killing them, has caused unnecessary suffering to either them or to others. I’ve found that there is no easy answer and that much of this is because we expect to be able to draw nice, clear-cut lines in what is (as is usually the case in matters like this) essentially a gradient. And I’ve found that it’s a good idea not to even try to draw too distinct a line and to be prepared to shift it regularly depending on the many factors that can apply (i.e. I would kill and eat a chimp if I were starving to death and had no other option but wouldn’t dream of it in my current status.)
In my current status I don’t like animal experimentation that causes suffering. I prefer to eat chickens that have had freedom to roam. I don’t mind eating sheep and cows so long as they are treated well. I don’t want to encourage cramped pig pens so avoid pork unless it’s free range. Chimps, orangutans, elephants, whales and dolphins (to name but a few) are very much in my group of ‘others’ and I would see the hunting and killing of one as causing similar suffering to killing a human.
Roughly, where is your boundary and why?
Tags: animal rights, definition, do unto others, ethics, golden rule
I really enjoyed this post. You can’t be accused of being apathetic to this issue
The in-group/out-group thing is interesting. Buddhists, for example (allowing room for nuance/difference) traditionally have denied any distinction between the ‘self’ and any ‘others’. I heard an Auckland Buddhist recently say “there is no other”. So that would deny any out-group at all, or conversely stated, would imply that their ‘in-group’ was (literally) everything. ((which raises the interesting rhetorical response to your question: If we’re going to ask why we see certain things as part of our ‘in-group’, we might also ask why we see other things as part of our ‘out-group’))
To (frustratingly?) confuse the issue further, I think it’s the case that there are different kinds of ‘in-groups’. You and I are of the same ‘blogging’ in-group (and also coffee lover, married, etc.), for example. Which shows that we are able as humans to have disagreement with people about things whilst having solidarity about other things. So – distinguishing (or could I say this is an example of when ‘compartmentalising’ can be a positive thing?) between what kind of in-group it is, can be helpful? I’m certainly aware of how within Christian communities, there is nearly always a very real (and I’d say hugely healthy) amount of difference on all manner of things (theological points, political bents, personalities, etc.). I’d actually say that when difference/dissention is denied – what you have is a cult. ((refreshing to me that our senior pastor preached about the necessity of questions/doubts last night!))
…and to link this with the ‘search for truth’ conversation…
I’ve always found a seeking of common ground to be a most helpful thing in the search for truth. Which is why two believers in God are best to discuss differences concerning evolution, etc. …and which is why two people who agree that patience is a virtue will have much more fruitful interaction than those who don’t, etc.
Cheers Dale. So, when we agree that “Treat others how you’d like to be treated” is a good way to live, who do you see ‘others’ as being? And do you use a benchmark such as sentience/suffering/soul/etc when making the distinction?
I’m happy to admit that (as/for a Christian) the golden rule is talking about human beings, so chimps are not immediately in view here. But, of course, the golden rule is not the only imperative for a Christian. Also, humans are to have wise care (‘dominion’ – often with negative connotations imposed) for all creation (which includes… well… everything).
The idea of a ‘benchmark’ for defining who ‘others’ are is interesting. I think it hints at the underlying process of ascribing value/worth to things – which is really what needs to be done well here, methinks. Does ant life have the same value/dignity as human life? I think not. Do we have a scientific reason for that? I think not. Do we have other reasons for that? I think so. Are they empirically based reasons? No, but they make sense.
Interesting.
Let’s assume that you would not like to have Thomas taken from you and killed. Do you think that, based on how you know you would feel in these circumstances, that it would influence whether or not you would take a young chimp from its mother and kill it?
Would that be the Golden Rule at work there or would you see it as unrelated because we’re dealing with non-humans?
Interesting scenario. An action like that could be motivated by several things, I suppose, but it’s hard to imagine any examples (perhaps the young chimp might be suffering from a painful/fatal disease/injury?). But for the sake of the example, I’ll skip the motivational component of the scenario, and go to the question of influence on the decision to ‘kill baby chimp’ or not.
Again, I think the golden rule refers to human beings, so it’s equally related as (for example) Paul’s command to include Gentiles even if uncircumcised. The key (Judeo/Christian – or monotheistic?) imperative for not killing the chimp, I think, would be the value of both chimp and it’s mother as a good creation of the creator. Now, we’d hold that creation is ordered such that some ‘bits’ of creation ‘use’ (read: eat, kill, cut-down, etc.) other ‘bits’ and it all ‘works’. But the idea of human ‘dominion’ over the rest of creation is to wisely govern things so that order is brought out of chaos (according to the will/purpose of the creator).
I see. So would I be correct in summarising that, to a Christian like you (obviously there are many strands of Christian belief), the Golden Rule works for humans only and the rest of creation comes under the rules of responsible dominion?
Short answer: Yes.
But the point is that neither of them ‘work’ enough –> we don’t love our neighbour as we love ourselves (we might not even love ourselves at all) enough, and we don’t responsibly and caringly look after creation (chimps, chiwawas or cherry trees) enough…
OK, thanks for that Dale.
I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of a Buddhist on this topic. Particularly, as Dale mentioned, how the concept of ‘no self’ fits in with the need to eat to survive. Any Buddhists?
Any vegetarians? Hindus? Animal welfare people?
(I realise there are only about 20 unique people here each day but I’d be fascinated to hear your diverse thoughts)
my buddhist acquaintence is a vegetarian – and I find the ‘what can we eat’ discussion fascinating. Even plants are ‘living’, so we’re choosing to eat living things, no matter what, so it’s interesting to see where people draw the line and why (and again, I’m convinced the real underlying reasoning will have to do with how we ascribe –or don’t ascribe?– value to things).
Well, if you are still in contact with your friend and they’re so inclined, get them on here; I’d love to hear what they have to say on the topic.
Discussions on the golden rule always remind me of a chapter of Carl Sagan’s book “Billions and Billions” called the Rules of the Game. A quick look on google and the chapter is even available as a pdf (ahhh the internet lol):
http://www.dallasuu.org/re/adult/huumanist/TitTatSagan.pdf
Enjoy
Thanks heaps for posting that link, Ian. Sagan writes well. Very interesting to skim; especially his ‘tit for tat’ discussion at the end (after surveying the various kinds of ‘rules’).
Yes, cheers for that Ian. I’ve not read Billions and Billions and it’s always a breath of fresh air to read Carl Sagan.
Related to animal morality/empathy and how little of a line there is btween humans and chimps:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/20090328
Look for the “Human and primate behaviour” one. Only 2 minutes in the speaker describes a stunning act of empathy of a chimp toward a bird. Absolutely freakin’ amazing!!
Excellent podcast!
Quickly on Sagan’s chapter – push back if I’ve read him wrongly – but he seemed to evaluate the various ‘rules’ based on their ‘results’… would that be a fair reading?
Yep I think that’s a fair reading.
Thanks Ian,
I won’t bother ‘going there’ (morality) at the moment – I’ll let Damian’s question (where do people draw the line for who/what is in their ‘in group’, etc.) hang there
((passing thought))
I have different ‘in-groups’ for different things/activities.
You are in my blogging ‘in-group’, even though we take different positions on theology
and yet young earth creationists are not in my ‘understanding-of-science’ in-group, even though we might share many theological points. My marriage with Diane means (among other things) that only she is in my ‘i-will-sexually-share-my-body-with-you’ in-group (and the crowd goes wild). 
As for your example above, you start with the activity of ‘causing suffering’, so this would seem (to me?) to be leading to the question of where the line is for someone’s ‘i-will-not-cause-you-to-suffer’ in-group.
((honestly hoping this is not a distracting passing thought – i think it’s directly related? – cheers))
Yes, on the topic of who or what I’ll eat I see the biggest factor as being that of suffering. Not the only factor, just the biggest. And I think that one of the defining factors of “treat others as you would like to be treated” is also the issue of suffering. Once again, not the only factor and others may disagree about the importance of the issue of suffering, in which case I’m eager to hear their thoughts on the matter.
Another quick and I think relevant thought. This time on suffering. It’s interesting to think of a) how sentience relates to suffering/pain (chimp, dog, ant, bacterial ‘suffering’ and tree, bush, grass ‘suffering’), and b) what seems to me to be the reality that much of life is ‘suffering’ (think of the joy/pain paradox of, say, childbirth!), and the thing that finally stops it is death.
HUMAN RIGHTS FOR CHIMPS!
Despite these obvious differences, in terms of Genomes, Humans & Chimps are 98.3% identical.99.4% of the crucial stuff.
Chimpanzee’s, like their closest relatives, are capable of compassion and joy, aggression and sadness.Chimpanzee’s, are capable of sophisticated cooperation, hunting, sharing food, using different objects as tools etc.Chimpanzee’s, can educate other chimpanzee’s.Female Chimpanzee’s, have been observed ‘selling’ sex for food.Chimpanzee’s, copulate in different positions, for pleasure only, rather than procreation.Chimpanzee infants, stay around their mothers till around 12 years old.The list of what we arrogantly call ‘human traits’ goes on.Yet, the hairless human Chimps have arbitrarily decided the sanctity of life, only applies to them and not their primate brethren.
Have you ever wondered what gives ‘human’ chimps the automatic rights to torture and imprison other chimps, at a scale that puts the indulgences of Nazi Germany to shame?A Bonobo chimp may share the same I.Q as a five year old human but none of their rights and entitlements.It’s fine by humans to conduct cruel and painful experiments on Chimpanzee’s, but not a fellow five year old homosapien.If we are so abjectly inclined towards manifesting our intellectual superiority, why not strip naked a group with downs syndrome, toss them behind the bars at a zoo, so humans without chromosomal disorders can gawk & laugh at their behaviour?Even the most ardent Christian or Muslim now accepts it not just God that makes the wind blow, a plant grow, but it is only God that can make a this undetectable thing called ‘a soul’ and care and nurture them.It is religious doctrine that has created, and continues to perpetrate the chasm that separates the hairless chimps, from the hairy ones.Chimps may act like humans, share a great percentage of what we like to call human genomes – but they don’t have souls.It is these things called souls that have lead humans to differentiate ourselves to a ‘God given’ position – that’s one that sanctifies barbaric cruelty against Chimpanzee’s.Along with every other creature on the planet Chimpanzee’s are ‘souless’ beasts.Nothing but mere, ‘animals’.So when did humans become human enough for God to warrant us being infused with these indefinable things souls?Homohabilis perhaps? Australopithecus may be?Was it a Cro-Magnon toddler that first ran up to his mother and said “hey look Mum I’ve now got a soul”?But any critical thought along this tact would drag us from the hard facts of bio-chemistry, molecular biology etc , and into the superstitious, scientifically-unfounded realm, called theology.Without the ability to sell your soul a one way ticket to eternal life ,the very foundations of religion would crumble.Unfortunately for the hairy Chimpanzees that walk on all fours, there are enough hairless bipedal chimps, stupid enough to believe in things called ‘a soul’.Surely it’s about time we woke-up as a species, and accepted, however reluctantly it must be for those who believe in books like The Bible, that we are all just intelligent bipedal chimpanzee’s – and get over it!
Paul.
NB: Reproduced from a blog I wrote on this subject.
admitting your cutting/pasting doesn’t make it nicer