DebateLabKIT/deepa2-corpus · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 1.71k
those of India, both the Hebrew and the Greek traditions
made human beings the centre of the moral universe - indeed
not merely the centre, but very often, the entirety of the morally
significant features of this world.
The biblical story of creation, in Genesis, makes clear the
Hebrew view of the special place of human beings in the divine
plan:
265
Practical Ethics
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and
over the fowl of the air, and over the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said upon them, Be fruitful,
and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have
dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air,
and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Today Christians debate the meaning of this grant of 'dominion';
and those concerned about the environment claim that
it should be regarded not as a license to do as we will with other
living things, but rather as a directive to look after them, on
God's behalf, and be answerable to God for the way in which
we treat them. There is, however, little justification in the text
itself for such an interpretation; and given the example God set
when he drowned almost every animal on earth in order to
punish human beings for their wickedness, it is no wonder that
people should think the flooding of a single river valley is nothing
worth worrying about. After the flood there is a repetition
of the grant of dominion in more ominous language: 'And the
fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of
the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth
upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your
hands are they delivered:
The implication is clear: to act in a way that causes fear and
dread to everything that moves on the earth is not improper;
it is, in fact, in accordance with a God-given decree.
The most influential early Christian thinkers had no doubts
about how man's dominion was to be understood. 'Doth God
care for oxen?' asked Paul, in the course of a discussion of an
Old Testament command to rest one's ox on the sabbath, but
it was only a rhetorical question - he took it for granted that
the answer must be negative, and the command was to be
explained in terms of some benefit to humans. Augustine shared
266
The Environment
this line of thought; referring to stories in the New Testament
in which Jesus destroyed a fig tree and caused a herd of pigs
to drown, Augustine explained these puzzling incidents as intended
to teach us that 'to refrain from the killing of animals
and the destroying of plants is the height of superstition'.
When Christianity prevailed in the Roman Empire, it also
absorbed elements of the ancient Greek attitude to the natural
world. The Greek influence was entrenched in Christian philosophy
by the greatest of the medieval scholastics, Thomas
Aquinas, whose life work was the melding of Christian theology
with the thought of Aristotle. Aristotle regarded nature as a
hierarchy in which those with less reasoning ability exist for
the sake of those with more:
Plants exist for the sake of animals, and brute beasts for the sake
of man - domestic animals for his use and food, wild ones (or
at any rate most of them) for food and other accessories of life,
such as clothing and various tools.
Since nature makes nothing purposeless or in vain, it is undeniably
true that she has made all animals for the sake of man.
In his own major work, the Summa Theologica, Aquinas followed
this passage from Aristotle almost word for word, adding
that the position accords with God's command, as given in
Genesis. In his classification of sins, Aquinas has room only for
sins against God, ourselves, or our neighbours. There is no possibility
of sinning against non-human animals, or against the
natural world.
This was the thinking of mainstream Christianity for at least
its first eighteen centuries. There we!e gentler spirits, certainly,
like Basil, John Chrysostom, and Francis of Assisi, but for most
of Christian history they have had no significant impact on the
dominant tradition. It is therefore worth emphasising the major
features of this dominant Western tradition, because these features
can serve as a point of comparison when we discuss different
views of the natural environment.
According to the dominant Western tradition, the natural
267
Practical Ethics
world exists for the benefit of human beings. God gave human
beings dominion over the natural world, and God does not care
how we treat it. Human beings are the only morally important
members of this world. Nature itself is of no intrinsic value, and
the destruction of plants and animals cannot be sinful. unless
by this destruction we harm human beings.
Harsh as this tradition is, it does not rule out concern for the
preservation of nature, as long as that concern can be related
to human well-being. Often, of course, it can be. One could,
entirely within the limits of the dominant Western tradition,
oppose nuclear power on the grounds that nuclear fuel. whether
in bombs or power stations, is so hazardous to human life that
the uranium is better left in the ground. Similarly, many arguments
against pollution, the use of gases harmful to the ozone
layer, the burning of fossil fuels, and the destruction of forests,
could be couched in terms of the harm to human health and

those of India, both the Hebrew and the Greek traditions

made human beings the centre of the moral universe - indeed

not merely the centre, but very often, the entirety of the morally

significant features of this world.

The biblical story of creation, in Genesis, makes clear the

Hebrew view of the special place of human beings in the divine

plan:

265

Practical Ethics

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and

over the fowl of the air, and over the earth, and over every

creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God

created he him; male and female created he them.

And God blessed them, and God said upon them, Be fruitful,

and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have

dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air,

and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Today Christians debate the meaning of this grant of 'dominion';

and those concerned about the environment claim that

it should be regarded not as a license to do as we will with other

living things, but rather as a directive to look after them, on

God's behalf, and be answerable to God for the way in which

we treat them. There is, however, little justification in the text

itself for such an interpretation; and given the example God set

when he drowned almost every animal on earth in order to

punish human beings for their wickedness, it is no wonder that

people should think the flooding of a single river valley is nothing

worth worrying about. After the flood there is a repetition

of the grant of dominion in more ominous language: 'And the

fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of

the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth

upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your

hands are they delivered:

The implication is clear: to act in a way that causes fear and

dread to everything that moves on the earth is not improper;

it is, in fact, in accordance with a God-given decree.

The most influential early Christian thinkers had no doubts

about how man's dominion was to be understood. 'Doth God

care for oxen?' asked Paul, in the course of a discussion of an

Old Testament command to rest one's ox on the sabbath, but

it was only a rhetorical question - he took it for granted that

the answer must be negative, and the command was to be

explained in terms of some benefit to humans. Augustine shared

266

The Environment

this line of thought; referring to stories in the New Testament

in which Jesus destroyed a fig tree and caused a herd of pigs

to drown, Augustine explained these puzzling incidents as intended

to teach us that 'to refrain from the killing of animals

and the destroying of plants is the height of superstition'.

When Christianity prevailed in the Roman Empire, it also

absorbed elements of the ancient Greek attitude to the natural

world. The Greek influence was entrenched in Christian philosophy

by the greatest of the medieval scholastics, Thomas

Aquinas, whose life work was the melding of Christian theology

with the thought of Aristotle. Aristotle regarded nature as a

hierarchy in which those with less reasoning ability exist for

the sake of those with more:

Plants exist for the sake of animals, and brute beasts for the sake

of man - domestic animals for his use and food, wild ones (or

at any rate most of them) for food and other accessories of life,

such as clothing and various tools.

Since nature makes nothing purposeless or in vain, it is undeniably

true that she has made all animals for the sake of man.

In his own major work, the Summa Theologica, Aquinas followed

this passage from Aristotle almost word for word, adding

that the position accords with God's command, as given in

Genesis. In his classification of sins, Aquinas has room only for

sins against God, ourselves, or our neighbours. There is no possibility

of sinning against non-human animals, or against the

natural world.

This was the thinking of mainstream Christianity for at least

its first eighteen centuries. There we!e gentler spirits, certainly,

like Basil, John Chrysostom, and Francis of Assisi, but for most

of Christian history they have had no significant impact on the

dominant tradition. It is therefore worth emphasising the major

features of this dominant Western tradition, because these features

can serve as a point of comparison when we discuss different

views of the natural environment.

According to the dominant Western tradition, the natural

267

Practical Ethics

world exists for the benefit of human beings. God gave human

beings dominion over the natural world, and God does not care

how we treat it. Human beings are the only morally important

members of this world. Nature itself is of no intrinsic value, and

the destruction of plants and animals cannot be sinful. unless

by this destruction we harm human beings.

Harsh as this tradition is, it does not rule out concern for the

preservation of nature, as long as that concern can be related

to human well-being. Often, of course, it can be. One could,

entirely within the limits of the dominant Western tradition,

oppose nuclear power on the grounds that nuclear fuel. whether

in bombs or power stations, is so hazardous to human life that

the uranium is better left in the ground. Similarly, many arguments

against pollution, the use of gases harmful to the ozone

layer, the burning of fossil fuels, and the destruction of forests,

could be couched in terms of the harm to human health and