Animal Inequality and How it is Relevant Today: The Case of Animals Versus Man

" Once given words, the animals have much to say, both about their own plight and about the human condition. They present themselves not as mere objects of study but as subjects with an outlook and interests of their own." (*The Case of the Animals Versus Man Before the King of the Jinn,* p.18*)*

## Introduction

Animals are essential to the preservation of the Earth's well-being. The delicate and vast ecosystems that are scattered around the world are pivotal to not only the planet's sustainability but also human's ability to thrive. In *The Case of Animals Versus Man Before the King of the Jinn*, issues that are brought up within this 'court hearing' are still relevant to our contemporary time. Not only are the petitions brought up by the animals pertinent, the weak arguments of humans and their rebuttals are also still seen today. This Wiki explores how the case brought before the King of the Jinn is still applicable in todays society.

### The Universal Wrongness of Animal Enslavement

The use of livestock as farming equipment is a present-day example of animal enslavement. *In The Case of the Animals vs Man Before the King of Jinn*, the “beasts” that consisted of cattle, a mule, and other livestock spoke to the King and said, “They enslaved such cattle as cows, sheep, and camels, and beasts like horses, asses, and mules. They hobbled and bridled them and put them to work — riding, hauling, ploughing, and threshing,” (Goodman and McGregor). These animals are telling the King about the horrors they face, and the language they use is comparable to the ways that tractors and combines are used. Humans have a harmful misconception that animals are equal to farm equipment. This evidence supports the idea that animal enslavement is still a modern-day problem. A journal written by Gary Francione strengthens this claim by advocating for no longer relying on animals as our resources. He believes that animals have the right not to be treated as property (Francione, 2005).

Humans see animals as ways to profit with little expense from themselves. In *The Case of the Animals vs Man Before the King of Jinn*, the animals speak about how the “Armenians treat us the same as others treat sheep or cows. To them, our fat bodies, rich meat, and many young are special blessings,” (Goodman and McGregor). The “special blessings” that they are referring to are the many ways humans exploit animal bodies as a way to make a killing in the world. Selling their meat and young are examples of treating animals as production line units. Urbanization, inflation, and the growing population are all reasons that animal exploitation for profit is still relevant today (World Animal Protection, 2021). The more people there are in the world, the more animals will be exploited for their bodies and the many ways humans use them.

In the world today, humans choose to rely on animals for food, clothing, sport, profit, medical advances, and much more. Lines from *The Case of the Animals vs Man Before the King of Jinn state, “*As for feeding and watering us, as he says, and everything else he says they do for us, these things are not done out of kindness or compassion…but for fear lest we die and they lose their investment in us and the benefits they take from us — drinking our milk, wearing our fleece or wool or fur, riding on our backs, and having us carry their burdens,*”* (Goodman and McGregor). We live in a one-sided relationship where there is very little benefit to the animals themselves. Humans eat them, wear their skins, and make a living from using animals, (Mark et al., 2021)*.* The Brethren of Purity show the animals’ perspective and how they feel as if they are not cared for because they should be, but because humans prosper off of their health. In order to successfully make money off of animals through businesses such as breeding and labor, the animals need to be in good health.

Financial gain is one of the main reasons people choose to abuse and exploit animals. In places like puppy mills, where a lot of people unknowingly support by “window browsing” puppies in pet stores or scrolling online, profits take precedence over animal welfare. In *The Case of the Animals vs Man Before the King of Jinn,* the animals contrast their wants and needs to that of the humans, *“*We have no need to treat and purvey it, buy it or sell it, haggle over its price, exhausting the body, troubling the soul, grieving the heart, and wearying the spirit,*”* (Goodman and McGregor). In businesses like puppy mills, the public is blind to how the operation runs, and how they treat their animals as production stock (*Puppy mills*). Animals have the sole purpose of living their lives untouched by humans, but the creativity of people has led to them using animals and their bodies as a way to profit without a thought of how it affects them. Animal enslavement and exploitation are still present in today’s society, and as long as we have humans who care more about profiting than compassion, the abuse of animals won’t stop.

#### Enslavement of Animals: The Philosophical Debate

In The Case of the Animals vs Man Before the King of the Jinn, the animals present several arguments to Biswarap the Wise, titularly known as the King of the Jinn. One of which, presented by the mule, regards the conditions that they have lived in under human rule. The mule talks about how they were chained up “with hobbles on our feet, bridles at our throats, bits in our mouths, and locks at our crotches”, and he continues to plead with Biswarap the Wise and discuss the hypocrisy of humans and their willingness to ignore the negative things they have done to the animals (119). The thing that sets the mule’s argument apart from the other animals’ in that chapter, though, is it’s leaning towards the religious and philosophical. He cites the Qur’an as his evidence, and uses it’s words of advice given to humans to condemn their actions.

Animals, in Abrahamic religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and the religion within this text, Islam, are held with a high regard by God. According to Kimberley Patton, an author and editor who specializes in religion, “animals display a chronic and abiding impulse to glorify God. Even their most natural behaviors have been interpreted as ritualistic” (417). This is used by other animals in the Ikhwan al-Safa, the Arabic title for the Case of the Animals vs. Man, but this specific argument used against the humans by the mule is unique in that sense. It is not used for the animals case; it is used to criticize the humans. The humans presented many different points as well, and they were arguing for superiority. In the beginning of Chapter 5, a human says that there is clear justification for the humans to enslave the animals. There is specifically use of the verbage of ‘slave’ and ‘masters’, which is problematic itself. Yet, their arguments justifying the enslavement due to superiority are proved wrong again and again through out the trial, as said by Katharine Loevy, a professor of philosophy at Pacific University. She comes to the conclusion that “superior beings do not enslave”, and even if we do think that the humans’ are correct in their claims, their enslavement of animals is wrong, and universally so (Loevy, 332).

The enslavement of animals is still a touchy and very controversial subject amongst the public today. With both sides presenting very intriguing and interesting arguments towards their side, it has begged questions, mainly of morality and the philosophical implications of enslaving animals. This can come in many ‘forms’: slaughterhouses, breeding/puppy mills, use of animals for human monetary gain (which was touched on above), and plenty of other examples. Enslavement itself is defined as “the action of making someone a slave”, and this is a practice that is wrong on many fundamental levels. The most notable and significant event – which happened pretty recently considering the scale of time – is the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, which went on for three hundred years.

Many who are pro-animal rights utilize this point to back up their stance. This is used by Hank Green, one of the owners of the famed YouTube Channel ‘Crash Course’, put it excellently when he said, “We’d never dream of using another human being in these ways, but we think nothing of doing it to non-human animals. So, how do we let ourselves do that?” in his video Crash Course Philosophy #42. He brings up a very good and relevant point, and uses evidence to refute multiple claims made by those who are, for lack of better terms, anti-animal rights. There is no good ownership of humans, so why is there good ownership of animals? There should not be this double standard, and since animals can’t explicitly give consent or permission to be owned, we shouldn’t be choosing what is best for them based on human standards.

Another philosophical viewpoint on animal rights is the argument of animal conscience and sentience of animals. Animals cannot speak, they do not have self-awareness, nor do they have the ability to care for them the way humans do. Yet, the more days that pass by, the more we know about animal consciousness and their cognitive abilities. Many who are skeptical of animal consciousness argue that behaviors that indicate emotion aren’t proof of emotion, “yet most scientists agree that animals are conscious beings that experience varying degrees of emotional responses” (online.uwa.edu). Martha Nussbaum echoes this in her own article, saying that “we can no longer draw the usual line between our own species and ‘the beasts’”.

So, what does this all mean in the end? Well, this means that the mule was right to call out the human’s terrible claims, and that this issue is still incredibly relevant nowadays. Animal enslavement takes on many forms, and it is impossible to touch on them all. But all of them - yes, all of them, including keeping pets -  are fundamentally wrong and as the most populous species on Earth, it is our responsibility to help right our wrongdoings and protect our coinhabitants.

### References

Francione, Gary L. “Animals—Property or Persons?” *Animal Rights Current Debates and New Directions*, 2005, pp. 108–134., https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195305104.003.0006.

Goodman, Lenn E., McGregor Richard J A. *The Case of the Animals versus Man before the King of the Jinn a Translation from the Epistles of the Brethren of Purity*. Oxford University Press in Association with the Institute of Ismaili Studies, 2012.

Mark, et al. “Guest Blog – the Ethics of Animal Exploitation Part 1 by Alick Simmons.” *Mark Avery*, 12 Sept. 2021, https://markavery.info/2019/06/07/guest-blog-the-ethics-of-animal-exploitation-part-1-by-alick-simmons/.

“We Have a New Podcast!” *World Animal Protection*, 22 Oct. 2021, https://www.worldanimalprotection.us/blogs/we-have-new-podcast.

“Puppy Mills.” *Animal Welfare Institute*, https://awionline.org/content/puppy-mills.

Loevy, Katharine. “The Ikhwan Al-Safa”s Animal Accusers: An Islamic Debate on Animal Slavery.” *Environmental Philosophy*, vol. 16, no. 2, 2019, pp. 319–38. *JSTOR*, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26945224.

Patton, Kimberley C. “‘He Who Sits in the Heavens Laughs’: Recovering Animal Theology in the Abrahamic Traditions.” *The Harvard Theological Review*, vol. 93, no. 4, 2000, pp. 401–34. *JSTOR*, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1510165.

*Non-Human Animals: Crash Course Philosophy #42*, YouTube, 16 Jan. 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3-BX-jN\_Ac.

Nussbaum, Martha. “They Can Think, Feel Pain, Love. Isn't It Time Animals Had Rights?” *Harvard Gazette*, Harvard Gazette, 24 Jan. 2023, https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/they-can-think-feel-pain-love-isnt-it-time-animals-had-rights/.

Uwa. “Do Animals Have Feelings? Examining Empathy in Animals.” *UWA Online*, 28 Feb. 2023, https://online.uwa.edu/news/empathy-in-animals/.

## Current Environmentalism Discourse in Regards to Animals

The main theme within *The Case of Animals Versus Man* is that of recognizing animals need to be respected. In the epistles, the animals advocate for themselves. They speak about how they are just as important as man and how they hold the same value as their human counterparts. However, today animals are not able to advocate for themselves. The idea of animal rights was manifested through the animals speaking, now scientists are making the case in order to bring awareness to climate change.

Animals are important in the Earths delicate ecology. Their presence is often intertwined with the environment, many animals have a cause and effect relationship with their designated environments. Within *The Case of Animals Versus Man,* animals argue that they have to be seen as needed; not as utilitarian. In the National Geographic article, *The Global Impacts of Habitat Destruction* it surveys the destruction made by farming and deforestation. The article states, "Habitat loss is primarily, though not always, human-caused. The clearing of land for farming, grazing, mining, drilling, and urbanization impact the 80 percent of global species who call the forest home. Approximately 15 billion trees are cut down each year. According to a study about tree density published in Nature, the number of trees worldwide has decreased by 46 percent since the start of civilization”(National Geographic). Many examples are given like farming, and deforestation this causes a severe impact on the earth and its resources. Human exploitation of earth has lead to severe destruction and decimation to important habitats. A topic that is discussed is that not only the land is affected by the negligence of humans, or rather, the participation of humans. Oceans and aquatic ecosystems are directly affected by these poor choices of humans.

This is especially concerning due to the fact that most of the damage done was human made. One main concern that is still being combated with science is the endemic problem of climate change. The Scholarly article, *Climate Change and Animals,* discusses the real problem that many animals face due to climate change that is severly affecting the earth. They state, "A skeptic might try to justify the neglect of animal life in climate change policy analysis in two ways. First, the value of nonhuman life..." "Second, scientific and conceptual uncertainty about climate and natural systems has clouded any attempt at quantifiable.”(*Climate Change and Animals*). Although *The case of Animals Versus Man* was written during the 10th century, the same sentiments of animals are still applicable in contemporary times. The idea of animal rights was manifested through the animals speaking, now scientists are making the case in order to bring awareness to climate change.  Climate change leads to steadily declining biospheres and ecological environments. Although the animals had voices when the Epistles were written, in reality humans must be advocate for Animal welfare.

## Modern Issues Surrounding Animal Welfare

### Animal Rights or Animal Welfare?

In T*he Case of the Animals*, there are two key arguments on behalf of the elephants and horses both of which argue against the mistreatment of their kind from humans. The elephants talk about the helplessness they felt while experiencing life in chains, unable to defend themselves. The horses add on and continue to speak about their lack of access to basic resources like food and water, while also experiencing similar acts of harmful bondage (118). The inclusion of these specific arguments raises philosophical questions about the differentiating rights between humans and animals.

Presently, a common debate in society revolves around two ideologies: animal rights and animal welfare. According to the World Animal Protection blog, "the animal welfare argument makes no position on the ethics of animal use, whereas the animal rights argument does" (Goldstein). This blog continues to refer to animal welfare as the advocacy for positive social relationships between animals and humans. On the other hand, the blog also refers to animal rights as the eradication of a human-animal relationship as a whole. So, in this case, the elephant and the horse may be arguing for animal rights. Their arguments challenge the prevailing notion of the assumed human authority and highlight the moral consideration owed to animals. Furthermore, their arguments question the ethics behind treating animals as resources.

However, as a human reading this story, the importance of animal welfare comes into play. Realizing that not everyone treats their animals– livestock or not– correctly brings the audience to reevaluate their relationship with animals. The author may have purposely written the animal characters as animal rights advocates for the purpose of pushing humans to reconsider their relationships with animals in hopes of bettering those relationships under the morals behind animal welfare.

### Religious Perspectives on Animals

*The Case of the Animals Versus Man* comes from an Islamic perspective and suggests the dominion of humans over animals. In Chapter 6 the ox states that "But whoever is richly endowed by God should show his thanks by sharing the excess with the less fortunate beings who lack those gifts... Men should do the same, since they are granted divine gifts that other animals lack. They should share their gifts unsparingly" (125). Speaking from a broader perspective, Carol Bakhos, a religious scholar at UCLA, analyzes animal treatment from Jewish, Christian, and Muslim perspectives based on ancient and medieval texts. In her journal article, she claims that the main differentiating factor between animals and humans is spiritual immortality (Bakhos, 209). So, the so-called "gifts" that the ox could be referring to is the ability to pursue the religious afterlife, regardless of religious background. The shared values about the animal status among different religions serves as proof of innate hierarchal behavior from humans, which can also lead to animal mistreatment.

### Animal Welfare and Agriculture

Re-exploring the previously mentioned ideologies, modern agriculture businesses and practices are subject to the animal rights and animal welfare debate. Considering that farmers typically have their own opinions on the matter, their treatment of animals in the agriculture industry can look different. In *The Case of the Animals Versus Man,* the ox describes the ill-treatment that the animals have received from humans. The ox says: "as they beat us with sticks and clubs about the face and flanks, you would have pitied us and shed tears. Where, then, is their mercy? Where is the compassion they speak of?" (117)

Discussing the treatment of livestock animals, an interview of 3 people: Dirk Nienhaus (pig farmer), Friedrich Mülln (founder of an animal welfare organization SOKO Tierschutz), and Anja Hradetzky (farmer), talk about their perspectives on the animal meat industry. From Nienhaus perspective, factory farming and cheap meat are binary opposites, suggesting that factory farming ensures better quality meat. Although spend the animals would spend much of their time in the factory and never experience the outdoors, he claims that the farms are "not taking anything away from the animal because it doesn’t know any different…” (8:36-8:51). However, the video also referenced to the livestock farms around the world, and Mülln showcased the mistreatment of turkeys on farms in Germany– highlighting his opposing view on factory farming. Later, Hradetzky displays her livestock practices to fall in the middle of both animal rights and animal welfare as she still uses the animals as a source of meat, but makes sure the animal is killed quickly to focus on the ethical practice of animal welfare.

Each person provides a different perspective into animal welfare: one for it, one against it, and one in between. Ultimately, the animals in the text showcase their mistreatment and advocate for a better quality of life under animal welfare, but also argue for basic rights that secure their right to live. In short, the purpose of this text could be to find harmony between animals and humans under the practices from both animal rights and animal welfare. The inclusion of the animals' perspective in this story allows for human understanding of the animal experience, allowing for reflection on the modern debate between animal rights and welfare.

### References

Bakhos, Carol. “Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Attitudes Towards Animals.” Comparative Islamic Studies, Issue 2, No. 5, Equinox Publishing, Nov. 2009, pp. 177-219, DOI: 10.1558/cis.v5i2.177

“Factory Farming, Animal Welfare, and the Future of Modern Agriculture.” Youtube, uploaded by DW Documentary, 12 February 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VOqNVt\_cmM.

Goldstein, Hannah. “What’s the Difference Between Animal Rights and Human Rights?” World Animal Protection, 11 July 2021, https://www.worldanimalprotection.us/blogs/whats-difference-between-animal-rights-and-animal-welfare

## Institutional Hierarchies in Humans vs. Animals

### Zoos: An Institution of Entertainment

In The Case of The Animals vs. Man, institutions take advantage to establish their dominance in the hierarchy. For example, in the novel, the animals make their case to King Jinn about the treatment they receive from the humans. The spokesman of the beast illustrates, "Everything else they say they do for us, these things are not done out of kindness or compassion, as he claims, but for fear, lest we die and they lose their investment in us and benefits they take from us" (116). This involves the bigger picture of humans believing they are on top of the food chain and deserve to rule over animals. The animals give all they can, and the humans still demand more. This is related to the Zoo institutions considering how the animals are investments of entertainment to the public. The idea of Zoos is to bring wild animals into an enclosed space that is entirely foreign to them to give a chance for the human species to observe and analyze them. The animals cannot connect or explain their distress in a way that we can understand. We force them into a situation that is isolating and inhumane. A human being forced into the same situation would be seen as barbaric. But because they are animals and humans are above them, they do not deserve the same treatment. The lie that humans are helping them is highly observed throughout society, but that is not true. Humans have the ability to change to make animals more important. Human-Animal relations are prominent through “affection and emotions play[ing] a key role in shaping public discourse and moral deliberation on the role and treatment of animals in society” (Tallberg 1). Conservations and other organizations contain humans that want to move forward and take apart power dynamics that shape these relationships.

### Harambe: A Tragic Event of Human Dominance

In 2016, a young child crawled through the bars of a barrier that caused him to fall into a gorilla enclosure (Gruen 2016). Nobody was hurt, but due to the close contact between humans and animals, the gorilla was considered "too exposed." Harambe the gorilla was put to death at the Cincinnati Zoo as a result (Gruen 2016). The humans involved were traumatized, and nobody won that day. Instead of the death of an endangered animal, people should have focused on the mother's carelessness. The gorilla never came into contact with the child. The death of Harambe sparked curiosity about how animals are genuinely treated in zoos. Humans find themselves at the top of the food chain, considering hierarchies. They take advantage of animals for enjoyment, despite the problematic situations forced on them. Nevertheless, as a generation, we must move forward to finding a solution to leveling the fields between animals and humans. In Zoos, animals are mere "symbols meant to represent their wild counterparts. But these symbols are distortions, created in an effort to amuse zoo-goers" (Gruen 2016). Humans establishing themselves as the dominant of the relationship does more damage than good, just for a small amount of entertainment.

### SeaWorld: The Problem of the Present

In continuation with topics of hierarchies, we all know the topic of the travesties of Sea World. They have taken captive wild aquatic animals just to put them in a small tank and teach them to do tricks. This is one of the institutes that establish humans becoming the governing party of the relationship between the human and animal species. The video created by a group called Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC) presents the telling of a specific orca named Tilikum. He has built a bad reputation among humans because they were forced into the wrong society. Tilikum “was taken from the ocean” only to endure attacks from other orcas, which caused a psychological breakdown (WDC 2022). His isolation after the attacks helped him label himself, especially as a “killer whale.” He is now known to have killed three humans in his time in the tank (WDC 2022. Instead of a wide span and his own hierarchy that was established as a calf, he was forced into something artificial for human enjoyment. This answers how humans put themselves at the top of hierarchies for what are supposed to be transactional relationships. Humans do more harm than good. In this video, the hardships that orcas face take the spotlight, considering how humans treat them.

### References

Gruen, Lori. “Opinion | The Cincinnati Zoo's Problem Wasn't That It Killed Its Gorilla. It's That It's a Zoo.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 11 Apr. 2023, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-cincinnati-zoos-problem-wasnt-that-it-killed-its-gorilla-its-that-its-a-zoo.

Tallberg, Linda, José-Carlos García-Rosell, and Minni Haanpää. "Human–Animal Relations in Business and Society: Advancing the Feminist Interpretation of Stakeholder Theory: JBE." Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 180, no. 1, 2022, pp. 1-16. ProQuest, doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04840-1. Accessed 3 May 2023.

Whale and Dolphin Conservation. “Dark side of captivity - Tilikum.” YouTube, 22 September 2022, youtu.be/Ns2kQZ0OtG8.