The Destable Human Through Time

James Turner’s insightful introduction to Reckoning with the Beast shows the disgraceful pattern of dominant human behavior. Even though “animals have lived intimately with man since before he was man” our pattern of species dominance and cruelty is traced back to the origins of mankind with the artistic painted images of horses on the walls of Lascaux (800). The fact that our dominance over animals has become a cultural trait passed onto new generations is detestable. Christianity’s very own Bible goes as far to explain that “every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you” (809). Like the famous Raphael painting below, it is a misconception that animal is on earth to provide food for man. Turner defines cruelty as “a desire to inflict pain and thus presupposes an empathetic appreciation of the suffering of the object of cruelty” (801). Yet until the 1700s, humans utilized animals as slaves for food, clothing, and transportation. Even during this movement of humanitarianism, Turner reminds us that it was animals were only given a small piece of sympathy for their plight.



John Lock made great efforts to changing English thought during this time period by explaining that “Nature always proceeds up the chain of being by minute gradations; distinct ‘species’ are no more than a biological convenience for organizing the study of what is actually a continuous, unbroken spectrum of natural forms” (803). As we have learning from the documentary Earthlings, we know that speceism and racism unfortunately go hand in hand. It should then come to no surprise that “all through the century writers tended to link together black Africans with apes” (804). Why is it that humans have always had the desire to group themselves in any way that made them feel and appear superior to others? By the 1700s, humans had already confirmed their dominance over animals so did they then see it necessary to begin triumphing over different races as well?



The Reverend Dr. Humphrey Primatt had inspiring writings that influenced many of the minds in this century by questioning the applicability of benevolence. By convincing the people that they were all under Nature he explained that “benevolence should shine upon man and beast alike, for, although our mental powers may place us ahead of all other ‘terrestrial animals’ in the ‘great Scale of Being,’ all creatures are necessary cogs in the divine machinery of Nature” (804). Since the doctrine of benevolence clearly supports and persuades readers to understand sympathy is associated with suffering, these words at a time of great religious revival were rather inspiring.



I think it interesting to consider how our lives might be different without our dominance over animals. Throughout human history, man has “depended upon animals for food, work, transport, [and] clothing” (795). We do not consider that “animals are born, are sentient and are mortal. In these things the resemble men” (795). Humans would have had to found other things to eat, pull their carts and plows, in addition to finding other means of clothing. It is clear that we depend upon animals. So why can we not respect this necessity and give them a humane slaughter and quality of life?