Animal Rights in the Jewish Tradition

Sophia, 2003

The general concern of the paper is to ponder whether religious views inform ethical views? This is explored through the issue of animal rights within Judaism. There is not only a great divergence, even today worldwide, on the realm of freedom that non-humans may enjoy, but historically this group of individuals has been most restricted in their behaviour, and level of value, by the Western religious worldviews. Hence it would be instructive to see to what extent an ethical attitude toward animals is present, or absent, and whether the religious prescriptions are justified by moral reasoning. And where we have found textual basis, as we have here, for taking the moral considerability of animals seriously, the next question is: has our moral sense been informed by a religious tradition? And has this led to changes in our secular understanding of ethical treatment toward animals? Or has there been a moral intuition there all along in humans, which has incidentally been expressed in a ...

The Turn: Zeitschrift für islamische Philosophie, Theologie und Mystik, Nr. 3 , 2021

This article begs the question why is it that despite Jewish tradition devoting much thought to the status and treatment of animals and demonstrating strict adherence to the notion of preventing their pain and suffering, ethical attitudes to animals are not dealt with systematically in the writings of Jewish philosophers and have not received sufficient attention in the context of moral monotheism. What prevented the expansion of the golden rule: “Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD” (Leviticus 19: 18) and “That which is hateful to you do not do to another” (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, 31a: 6; Jerusalem Talmud, Nedarim, 30b: 1) on to animals? Why is it that the moral responsibility for the fellow-man, the neighbor, or the other, has been understood as referring only to a human companion? Does the demand for absolute moral responsibility spoken from the face of the other, which Emmanuel Levinas emphasized in his ethics, not radiate from the face of the non-human other as well? Levinas' ethics explicitly negates the principle of reciprocity and moral symmetry: the 'I' is committed to the other, regardless of the other's attitude towards him. Does the affinity to the eternal Thou which Martin Buber also discovers in plants and animals not require a paradigmatic change in the attitude towards animals? This paper examines attitudes to animals in Jewish thought. The article opens with a discussion of man's special status in Creation, as created in the image of God, and explores, on the one hand, the challenges of this approach (human supremacy), and, on the other, its inherent potential (human moral responsibility). The short discussion on the attitudes toward animals in the Hebrew Bible teaches that moral responsibility does not derive from the special status awarded to humans in Creation, but rather is rooted in God’s own relationship to animals. The heart of the article is devoted to discussing the treatment of animals in Jewish law, how biblical laws that deal with animals were understood among halakhic thinkers, and, especially, the meaning of the ancient term “the suffering of living creatures” (tza’ar ba’alei chayim). The basic premise is that halakhic discourse can provide fertile ground for a philosophical- religious discourse on animals.

Biblical Interpretation, 2019

Much has been written about animal rights in the four decades since the appearance of Peter Singer's classic monograph Animal Liberation (1975) and not a few studies consider often in passing-what biblical texts have to contribute to debates about animal rights. These studies are, however, almost exclusively the work of non-specialists. I begin to address this dearth of professional scholarship on this topic by exploring what four biblical laws-Exod. 23:10-11, 12; Lev. 25:2-7 and Deut. 5:12-15-might suggest about the legal standing of animals. As legal scholar Gary L. Francione states, "[W]e normally use [the term "rights"] to describe a type of protection that does not evaporate in the face of consequential considerations." In this article, I consider whether the four biblical laws in question meet this standard.

Journal of the Institute of Critical Animal Studies, 2007

Westerners have long admired the nature-friendly qualities of Eastern spiritual traditions, such as ahimsa and reincarnation, which tie human beings to the circle of life that reaches across species and which requires a compassionate approach to all living beings. Yet we have often failed to acknowledge this same beauty—teachings of compassion toward allliving beings—in Western traditions. This article examines Jewish morality with regard to nature, specifically to human relations with nonhumans. The article focuses on creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, and on fundamental moral teachings such as compassion and peace. The point of the article is not so much to be critical of Judaism, but rather to reveal how much we might learn from the spiritual and moral teachings of the Jewish tradition about our place in the larger universe. Moreover, as Jewish morality from the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) remains important to Christians, this article reveals the ethical standards to which others might hold both Jews and Christians accountable in their relations to animals and the world as a whole Cite as: “Jewish Ethics and Nonhuman Animals.” Journal of the Institute of Critical Animal Studies 5.2 (2007)

Both the Qur'an and the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (Hadith) frequently mention animals. The Qur'an declares that God does not shy away from drawing comparisons, even with a gnat, and two of the Suras (chapters) are indeed named after insects: the ant and the bee. The Qur'an speaks of animals being 'communities like yourselves', a phenomenon Western zoologists now study more fully and document in film and scientific reports. Animals and humans all share in the bounty of God's creation. One of the Prophet's followers was surprised to hear him urge kindness to animals and state that people would be rewarded for it, so it seems that animal rights were not widely recognised at the time. Even when killing animals for food, Muslims are instructed to treat them with kindness and consideration and do the deed well, ever mindful that they are God's creatures. It is not just a question of whether stunning kills the animal or not, but whether it is a kindness to the animals or not. In fact the Prophet himself ate very little meat. Islamic law as it evolved through interpretation (fiqh) does not always enshrine the full spirit of the teachings of the Qur'an and the Prophet, on which it is based, and can be inconclusive, but it does provide some measures beneficial to animals, such as a general prohibition against harming them, recognition of the rights of animals to be provided with food and drink, and provision of hima (reserves / sanctuaries), as well as prohibitions against eating and selling certain classes of animals. Animal Rights in Islam Animals rights debates can be traced back to the 6 th century BC with the likes of Pythagoras and then, a couple of hundred of years later, with Aristotle in the 4 th century. The problem is that no real conclusion or consensus was gained by the debates. Pythagoras wrote , " For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love." Aristotle (384-322 BC) thought animals existed to provide humans with food and other provisions. He argued that animals are below humans because only humans can reason and therefore we could use animals without the consideration we would give to people. There are still debates going on around the Internet on whether animals have souls.

Studies in the History of Exegesis, edited by Mark W. Elliott, Raleigh C. Heth, and Angela Zautcke, 2022

The Turn, 2020

This article begs the question why is it, that despite Jewish tradition devoting much thought to the status and treatment of animals and demonstrating strict adherence to the notion of preventing their pain and suffering, ethical attitudes to animals are not dealt with systematically in the writings of Jewish philosophers and have not received sufficient attention in the context of moral monotheism. What prevented the expansion of the golden rule: »Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD« 2 and »That which is hateful to you do not do to another« 3 on to animals? Why is it that the moral responsibility for the fellow-man, the neighbor, or the other, has been understood as referring only to a human companion? Does the demand for absolute moral responsibility spoken from the face of the other, which Emmanuel Levinas emphasized in his ethics, not radiate from the face of the non-human other as well? Levinas's ethics explicitly negates the principle of reciprocity and moral symmetry: The ›I‹ is committed to the other, regardless of the other's attitude towards him. Does the affinity to the eternal Thou which Martin Buber also discovers in plants and animals not require a paradigmatic change in the attitude towards animals?

2012

Animals are considered to be one of the large groups of the creation of Allah (SWT). According to the Holy Qur’an, they are deemed to be miracles of the Almighty Allah and signs of His existence and Unity. All of them worship Allah in a way that we are unable to see or feel. By and large, all creatures including these animals are created for the benefit of humankind. Some of these animals are consumed as food or meat; some of them are used for riding on their backs or carrying goods; while some others are kept as pets or used for other purposes. Most of them are wild, while some of them are domestic. However, some of them are harmful to mankind. Nowadays, besides the use of plants and bacteria, animal cells are also used for industrial or scientific purposes and for making drugs and chemicals. Human beings often treat these animals with cruelty and fail to treat them ethically. During the last century or so a number of organizations for protecting animal rights have been established all over the world. Islam has also offered some ethical guidelines for treating animals. By analyzing the related verses of the Qur’an and ahadith of the Prophet (pbuh), this paper intends to discuss Islamic ethics for treating animals. The paper may conclude that Islam has offered a balanced and just code of ethics for treating animals.

Both the Muslim and Jewish faiths have specific requirements for the slaughter of religiously acceptable animals. The major difference from the general practices in most countries is that the animals are not stunned prior to slaughter. It is important that meat scientists understand the implications of these differences. They need to critically consider the scientific information available about the effects of different slaughter practices on animals before reaching any judgements about the appropriateness of a particular form of slaughter. It is also important that they understand the importance of these practices to the people who follow these religious codes. We hope to discuss some information that may be useful in evaluating religious slaughter. The Jewish dietary code is described in the original five books of the Holy Scriptures. The Muslim code is found in the Quran. Both codes represented major advancements in the respect for animals and their proper handling in ancient times. For example, the Jewish code specifically forbid the use of limbs torn from live animals and the slaughter of both a mother animal and her children on the same day. One way to view the rather comprehensive legal system of the Jewish faith is spelled out in the paragraphs below. We feel this explanation may help others understand the degree of significance of these religious practices to those of the Jewish faith (Grunfeld, 1972). "And ye shall be men of holy calling unto Me, and ye shall not eat any meat that is torn in the field" (Exodus XXII:30) Holiness or selfsanctification is a moral term; it is identical with...moral freedom or moral autonomy. Its aim is the complete selfmastery of man. "To the superficial observer it seems that men who do not obey the law are freer than law-abiding men, because they can follow their own inclinations. In reality, however, such men are subject to the most cruel bondage; they are slaves of their own instincts, impulses and desires. The first step towards emancipation from the tyranny of animal inclinations in man is, therefore, a voluntary submission to the moral law. The constraint of law is the beginning of human freedom....Thus the fundamental idea of Jewish ethics, holiness, is inseparably connected with the idea of Law; and >Religious slaughter and animal welfare:a discussion for meat...

Animal welfare has become a growing concern affecting acceptability of agricultural systems in many countries around the world. An earlier Judeo-Christian interpretation of the Bible (1982) that dominion over animals meant that any degree of exploitation was acceptable has changed for most people to mean that each person has responsibility for animal welfare. This view was evident in some ancient Greek writings and has parallels in Islamic teaching. A minority view of Christians, which is a widespread view of Jains, Buddhists and many Hindus, is that animals should not be used by humans as food or for other purposes. The commonest philosophical positions now, concerning how animals should be treated, are a blend of deontological and utilitarian approaches. Most people think that extremes of poor welfare in animals are unacceptable and that those who keep animals should strive for good welfare. Hence animal welfare science, which allows the evaluation of welfare, has developed rapidly.