Soul Power

The crux of “Animal Humanities” is that, according to Garrard, “The study of the relations between animals and humans in the humanities is split between philosophical consideration of animal rights and cultural analysis of the representation of animals.” [1] He goes on to make the argument that this “cultural analysis” of animals as beings incapable of reason is not a legitimate reason for their maltreatment. Animals are lesser beings than humans. I think that is painfully obvious even to the most diehard of vegans. Arguments around that do not exist. But that is part of Garrard’s point: just because it can’t reason like a human does not mean that any sentient being should be denied the basic, unalienable rights of ethical treatment.

This thing is too damn cute to torture. [2]

The topic of animal humanities relates in similar ways to both environmentalism and Jainism. Unlike Judaism and Christianity, “The Buddhists and Jains do not depend upon God, but the whole force of their religion is directed to the central truth in every religion that each person needs to remake himself or herself in the image of the divine ideal.” [3] Rather than living life by the mandates of God, Jainists relate to the mandate of the earth, the spirit of life. The religion relates to animal humanities because at heart, both ideas are about fairness. The justification for the spirit and the right to live for all beings—conscious or not, as far as Jains go—is the only way of life. Environmentalism is founded upon a similar ideal, “Environmental ethics, on the other hand, places far less emphasis on the individual organism, but demands moral consideration for inanimate things such as rivers and mountains, assuming pain and suffering to be a part of nature.” [4] While it differs from Jainism in its philosophy that suffering is natural, Environmentalism and Jainism are both spawned from the paradigm of the omnipresence of the earth.

More than God, in many eyes, this object is our source or life.[5]

The inklings of early vegetarianism, outside of the Buddhist and Jainist viewpoints, originated from a similar worldview, “It was linked with two other ideas; the wider of the two forbade all killing and hence opposed murder, strife and war, while at the heart of the philosophy was a belief in metempsychosis, or the transmigration of souls.” [6] Metempsychosis, while not explicitly mentioned in the other passages, is a key statute in the ethos driving all of these paradigms. The soul, rather than the intellect, the brain, or the heart, is responsible for the right of deliverance for all beings. And rightfully so—even according to my view of animal humanities. I am still not a vegetarian—perhaps it is because I believe in the natural pain and suffering of living things—but I believe in the rights of the soul or the spirit of a living being. I think this intrinsic right shows itself in the need for companionship, as Isidore states, “I mean, before they came here I could stand it, being alone in the building. But now it’s changed. You can’t go back, he thought. You can’t go from people to nonpeople.” [7] Loneliness is an interminable, tenacious enemy. The constant struggle amid the self is only exacerbated by the morose lack of juncture, of connection, of companionship between two beings. The compounding dolor of singularity is testament to the ambiance of the soul and the reason for the consideration of all beings, rational or not.

[1]98
[2]http://www.worth1000.com/entries/318000/318081FLNK_w.jpg
[3]96
[4]99-100
[5]http://www.spacetoday.org/images/SolSys/Earth/EarthBlueMarbleWestTerra.jpg
[6]110
[7]Dick, 204