Animal Suffering

Neither Horrendous nor Merely Sustaining Animal Evolution

Abstract

Regarding animal suffering —a theological problem that relatively recent developments intensify—, I propose two points. (1) For human holiness to be able to emerge, we humans must possess a double inheritance. On the one hand, in our immediate evolutionary past we acquired two immensely adaptive capacities –firstly, the ability to grasp others’ mental contents, and, later, the self-directed speech, which enhances the self-control that had previously emerged at protecting and improving one’s own reputation, i.e., one’s own social interests. On the other hand, we inherit from an enormously long evolutionary process the pleasure–pain pair. This pair, which serves as a guide for behavior, is essential for both animals and humans; yet at times it obscures the knowledge that we, unlike non-human animals, possess of another person’s mental contents. Thus, a conflict arises between pursuing my physical and social interests, prompted by my pleasure/pain, or, by contrast, recognizing that the needs of another person are also important. Consequently, since this conflict makes human holiness possible, we can say that the progressive evolution of animal suffering was one of the causes that made human holiness possible. (2) The horrendous nature of human suffering need not be attributed to the suffering of animals. In moments of pain or danger, animals focus solely on the immediate future as framed by their goal of escaping. This is the only adaptive animal behavior in such situations. By contrast, humans additionally deploy their capacity to evoke past experiences, non-immediate futures, or even states they have already realized are impossible to attain, all of which can at times be useful in the attempt to creatively find a way to escape, but, when they are not, greatly amplify pain.