The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-11-22

(COmpiLed from the Arena and Pop
uldr iScience.)
The scientific method is making a
radical change in the relation of man
to animals. 'FThe new science of ZOO
psychology has sprung up, in which
the mental traits and moral qualities
OF the lower animals have been, not
only recorded as curious and comical
anecdotes, but Systematically investi-
gated and philosophically explained"
So writes Professor f. z. Evans, in
the Popular Science Monthly. Schop-
enhauer says that the intense egotism
of man sis a fundamental and false
defect in the psychological and ethical
teachings Of both Judaism and Chris
tianity, and has been the source of
untold misery to myriads of sentient
and highly sensitive organisms.
These religions have unnaturally
separated man from the animal world,
to which he essentially belongs, and
placed him on pinnacle apart, treat
ing all lower creatures as mere
things"
TO Noah and his Sons were given
every moving thing of the earth, for
food, but there is no direction what
soever that they are to be treated in
merciful way.
There is not a creed, in Christendom,
which clearly or positively teaches as
a dogma in religion, even the simple
duty of kindness to animals. 1t is not
in the Thirty-nine Articles, or in the
Westminster Confession of Faith.
DIR. Leffingwell said he called Cardinal
Manning's attention to this subject,
and he replied: "The Catholic Church
has never made any authoritative
declaration as to our obligations to
the lower animals"
That animals have no rights because
they are not rational creatures and
that they have only one purpose, and
that is, to minister to man, Is the an
cient doctrine set forth by Thomas
Aquinas, and confirmed by eminent
theologians since that time. DIR. Leo
pold Schulz, Professor in the Theo-
logical Seminary of Treves, in an
elaborate work, the "So-called Under
standing of Animals, or Animal In
stincts," denounces those who hold
that the mental differences between
men and animals is only one of degree,
and not of kind, as "enemies of the
Christian faith"
Bishop Butler, on the other hand,
in his great work on the ANALOGY of
Religion" ETC., declares that "we
cannot find anything throughout the
whole analogy of nature to afford the
slightest presumption that animals
ever lose their living powers and he
admits that in his argument, in proof
of Immortality, he proves the cases as
well for animals as he does for men.
DIR. Thomas Arnold, of Rugby, en- |
dorsed the criticism of CELSIUS, made |
seventeen hundred years ago, on |
Christianity, that sit considers every |
thing as having been made for man."
and DIR. Arnold adds, {" it would seem |
as if the primitive Christian, by lay |
ing go much stress upon future life, |
in contradistinction to this life, and |
placing the lower creatures out of the |
pale of hope, placed them out of the |
pale of sympathy, and thus laid |
the foundation for this utter |
disregard of animals in the |
light of our fellow creatures. The |
definition of virtue among the early |
Christians was the same as Paley's,
that it was good, performed for the |
sake of securing eternal happiness, |
which, of course, excluded all the So
called brute creation"
''The whole subject of the brute |
creation" says DIR. Arnold, sis to me, |
one of such painful mystery, that / |
dare not approach it. The mental |
distress experienced in such cases |
arises from the fact that the subject is |
approached from the wrong side, and |
surveyed from a false point of view. |
Traditional theology, and anthropo- |
centric ethics are brought into conflict |
with the better impulses of broad |
and generous nature, and the sharp |
antagonism could hardly fail to be a |
source of perplexity and pain. Char |
ity' says Lord Bacon, will hardly |
water the ground, when it must first |
fill a pooI;' and OF all pools, the hard |
est to fill is that which Is dug in the |
dry, gravelly soil of human egoism."
DR.. Wayland, in note appended |
to the body of his work, denies that |
animals have any "moral faculty."
and that man has the right TO eXtin- |
guish the rights of animals. But ami |
mails should be treated kindly, he |
claims. To treat them badly tends to |
make men brutal and ferocious. But |
he does not concede any moral rights |
to animals.
The consequence of this attitude OF |
men towards animals, founded on |
belief of their inferiority, and the |
absence of any general command in |
Scripture, to regard them as sentient |
beings, has caused an amount of ami |
NAL suffering fearful to contemplate. |
And, until lately, in the United |
States, the greatest distress has been |
permitted, in the transportation of |
animals for food. The law today |
Furnishes cruelty to animals, more on
the ground that it is malicious
mischief to property than that it is
wrong done to the animal.