Are Animals Moral Agents? Why Only Humans Step Off the Hamster Wheel

In my previous article, Why Morality Can’t Evolve, I discussed how Peter Singer, Alex O’Connor, and Jessica Frazier failed to provide a convincing case for their core understanding of morality. I argued that the Christian worldview offers a much more satisfying explanation for our moral tendencies. In this article, I want to examine the role of animals within these competing moral frameworks. Singer is well-known as an advocate for animal rights, and while O’Connor has softened his stance on veganism, he remains deeply concerned about the treatment of animals. Singer and O’Connor’s activism, along with their philosophical credentials, make their opinions worth considering; however, their inability to establish a firm foundation for their ethics ultimately makes their case for the moral standing of animals unpersuasive.

Moral Pains

How does morality connect to the animal kingdom? Is it appropriate to apply the same ethical principles used for humans to animals? As someone actively involved in caring for abandoned cats and kittens, this issue is very important to me. Do I do it because I have a moral obligation or an image-bearing duty? Is my kindness to cats a reflection of their equal moral standing, or is it because they are, as my wife likes to remind me, the least of these?

Singer believes that all sentient creatures should have moral standing. 

“I think that we should regard all sentient creatures as moral subjects, that is, as beings with moral standing, which means we have obligations not to harm them and where we can to promote their happiness and well-being.” (Singer) 

What, however, is sentience? Merriam-Webster defines sentience as feeling or sensation, as distinguished from perception and thought, which Singer essentially reduces to the ability to experience pleasure or pain. 

“So the limit of sentience (using the term as a convenient if not strictly accurate shorthand for the capacity to suffer and/or experience enjoyment) is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others.” (Singer) 

Swinburne considers this a very low standard for being recognized as a moral agent. Frazier also pushed back against the idea of reducing morality to a tug of war between pain and pleasure, preferring to be more optimistic about the moral sentiments that emerge from the evolutionary process. 

“I think one of the problems of the kind of semi-biological way that we’ve been taught to think about good and bad and morality is that we have this kind of like “mmm, that was tasty,” “mmm, that was painful,” overly simplistic model of what good is., most of human life is partly about striving towards numerous higher-order goods, what is noble, what is beautiful, what is kind.” (Frazier)

However, for someone like Singer, who believes we are just a few mutational steps ahead of our animal ancestors, it is imperative that the human apple not fall far from the Darwinian Tree of Life because to court human exceptionalism is to let an image-bearing foot in the door. 

The problem with using pain and suffering as a metric for animal morality is that humans are the only ones who take it seriously. Animals, while experiencing pain and suffering, appear to have no problem inflicting it on others, and even accept it as the cost of doing business in the economy of evolution. Pain and suffering have long been the tools of the evolutionary trade, so it seems odd that the creatures most indebted to nature red in tooth and claw for their success would recoil at the sight of blood. Natural selection is solely focused on sorting the fit from the unfit and isn’t bothered by a bit of pain and suffering as long as it achieves its goals. Atheists, however, shiver at the thought of another ice age and get all hot and bothered by global warming, forgetting that these events may just be the motivation evolution needs to take the next great leap forward. Natural selection licks its chops, waiting for the next environmental pressure to bring the pain so it can wield its power and change the biological landscape. Yet, the atheist, rather than celebrating the moment, questions its moral character.

I find it hard to believe that humans are simply graduates of the school of evolutionary hard knocks, given their aversion to the antics of those who live in the Animal House. I also find it challenging to think of animals as members of the moral community, as they so often break its rules and regulations. Humans are truly unique, and while Singer may view claims of human exceptionalism as speciesist delusions of grandeur, he cannot deny that humans are the only creatures on the planet concerned with morality. 

Read more: 

Why Morality Can’t Evolve: Erik Strandness Responds to Peter Singer, Alex O’Connor, Jessica Frazier and Richard Swinburne

Why does God allow pain and suffering? A series on the most googled questions

Is the Problem of Suffering the strongest argument against God?

Cancer, War and the God Question: why so much suffering?

Stepping off the hamster wheel

Animals are confined to the circle of life, biding their time until they eat or are eaten. Humans, however, have the unique ability to step outside that circle; measure it, monitor it, manipulate it, and also mess it up. Humans can set aside their immanence and take a transcendent view of life. As much as evolutionists want to believe that there is a continuum of morality from animals to humans, humans remain the only creatures capable of exiting the circle of life, watching it spin, and even intervening when it begins to wobble. 

A lion savages a gazelle, but a human, rather than petting its mane and saying “Good Kitty,” is repulsed by the “inhumanity” of it all. We get upset when animals don’t behave like humans, but rather than scold them, we give them an instinctual free pass. A hawk devours a mouse and has no regrets, yet a human wrongs another and laments, “I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.” (Romans 7:19) Life within the circle of life is driven by instinct, but for those creatures able to step off the hamster wheel, morality rules the day. 

Speciest

Singer has accused humans of being speciesists. But why not also include cats that wipe out mouse populations? Birds decimating worm colonies? Why single out humans? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that natural selection is speciesist, because it appears, from all available evidence, that the tree of life is speciesist all the way down to its roots? The really interesting question is why Singer thinks the hamster wheel of life revolves around a moral axis when the hamsters don’t? 

Atheists attribute differences between humans and animals to varying levels of evolutionary development, but maybe rather than biological sophistication, it’s because humans are the only creatures that are spiritually discerning. The Bible supports this idea by declaring we are dust and breath, suggesting that our morality has more to do with heavenly inspiration than biological earthenware. 

I appreciate Singer’s concern that our speciesist tendencies might lead us to exploit the natural world, but I’m surprised he isn’t more concerned with the arrogance animals display in their attempts to be the most fit survivors. In one sense, I can get behind Singer’s accusations of speciesism because all he has done is provide additional evidence for the doctrine of original sin. Speciesism is really just another way of saying “You will be like God,” and when we illegitimately assume the throne, our shaky knowledge of good and evil often results in crimes against nature. God did not create us to be gods, but to be stewards and custodians. However, that cannot be achieved if we run with the pack. It is only possible if we swim against the evolutionary tide.

Animal flourishing?

Singer believes that, beyond not harming animals, we should also promote their happiness and well-being. But what exactly is primate happiness? Does bunny well-being include not being eaten by a wolf, or does that interfere with the joy a wolf might feel when it sits down for a rabbit entree? Can we grant rights to animals when they are so dismissive of the rights of others? 

Singer may want to give animals a seat at the moral table, but why do they then exhibit such atrocious manners? He must be disappointed that his passion for pulling them out of the circle of life and giving them moral standing is met with indifference as they jump back into the feral fray. Animal flourishing, happiness, and well-being are extremely difficult to define because animals have no spokesperson, and those who give them a voice just end up putting human words in their mouths. 

Natural selection doesn’t incorporate happiness or well-being into its survival algorithm. It is only beings created in God’s image who recognize the importance of “good” things being put together in a “very good” way. If we are just cogs in nature’s machine, then we have no duty to keep spanners out of the works. If, however, we were placed in a position of authority and given access to the knobs and dials, then we have an environmental mandate to keep it running at peak efficiency. 

Interestingly, God often delivers dramatic “nature talks” to showcase His power and might, therefore, to not respect His creational resume is to question His job qualifications. God has fashioned beautiful pieces of art, and we are called to be His curators. It is a great honor, but also an enormous responsibility, which we ignore at our peril.  

Get access to exclusive bonus content & updates: register & sign up to the Premier Unbelievable? newsletter!

Revisiting morality

In my last article, I defined morality as adherence to a set of transcendent relationship parameters universally recognized by all humans, which, when violated, necessitates correction. I broke this definition down into three key components: relationships, standards, and free will. I want to revisit this definition and see if animals meet these moral criteria. 

My first criterion is relationship. We are definitely in a relationship with the natural world, but it is one-sided. We must treat animals with respect, preserve the ecosystem, and prevent extinction, but animals have no such obligation to humans. The Red Panda doesn’t care about the living conditions of Chinese peasants, the Silverback Gorilla doesn’t form organizations to feed starving Africans, and the Spotted Owl doesn’t provide shelter for the homeless in North America. We believe it’s okay for animals to hunt with the pack, but think humans should behave according to the “better angels of their nature.” Animals have no concern for the way they treat others; therefore, they don’t have moral standing. Since we reside outside the circle of life, we are not on equal footing with nature, but instead occupy a transcendent space that monitors the ability of God’s “good” creations to be successfully incorporated into His larger “very good” vision for the planet.  

The second criterion is a transcendent set of relationship standards that are universally available and binding. Animals are incapable of transcending the instinctual dictates imposed upon them and therefore cannot see their actions within a broader environmental context. Animal behavior is guided by universal and unchangeable instinctual rules of conduct that maximize each species’ survival within the larger ecological context, but overlook the rights of the individual. Humans, on the other hand, are concerned not only with the global consequences of their actions but also with the impact they have on individual members of the group. 

The third criterion is free will. Animal behavior conforms to a set of instincts over which they have no control. The laws of nature micromanage their behavior, which is why we don’t hold them accountable for their actions. Morality, however, requires us to be accountable for the choices we make. If you are not free to choose between competing courses of action, then you are not a moral agent. 

I believe you can see that since we exist outside the circle of life, our relationship with animals is quite different. While both of us are bound by transcendent, universal relationship parameters, animals have no say in the matter, whereas humans do. It is for these reasons that moral standing is only granted to humans and not animals. 

A good deed

A common critique of Christianity concerns God’s commands to dominate and subdue nature, because it is believed that it gives humans free rein to do as they please with the planet. Many people worry that if we don’t grant animals moral standing, it will lead to abuse. But what if those commands, rather than giving us carte blanche, were strict environmental mandates to care for the lilies of the field that God clothes and the birds of the air that God feeds? 

As Christians, we are called to care for animals not because they are sentient but because they are “good” and vital for the proper implementation of God’s “very good” plan for the world. When God called animals “good,” He wasn’t making them moral subjects but rather objects deserving moral consideration by humans with agency. Our moral duty, therefore, isn’t to the animals but to the One who created them. 

We are image bearers, created from dust and breath, tasked with bringing divine commands to Earth and offering earthly praise to the heavens. As middlemen and women, we are the only creatures capable of navigating the moral space between immaterial relationship rules and their physical expressions. We should be grateful for people like Singer and O’Connor who have a heart for animals. However, we must remember that our concern for them isn’t a legislative matter dictated by rights, but a heavenly mandate given by God to care for that which He calls good.

Erik Strandness is a physician and Christian apologist who has practised neonatal medicine for over 20 years and has written three apologetic books. Information about his books can be found at godsscreenplay.com

 Peter Singer – Writings on an Ethical Life. (New York, Harper Collins, 2000), p. 35.