I'm a Christian myself but I definitely think that the Indian religions get animals and animal rights far more correct than we usually do.

There is fundamentally no difference between animal consciousness and human in the buddhist view.

But to take it to a human level: you dont see a difference in (chemical) castration of people with mental disability and killing them?

Animals eat other animals. We're animals, so we do that, too.

If anything, religions largely promote treating animals properly, because they're some form of gods' creatures.

The bible is often contradictory, and in it you can also find these:

> 'He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man' (Isaiah 66.3)

> 'For meat destroy not the work of God' (Romans 14.19-21)

> 'A righteous man regardeth the life of the beast' (Proverbs 12.10)

Christianity doesn't represent the majority of religions (~31.5%). Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism all advocate for animal rights (~45.3%).

The societies that have this social contract outdo those that don't, simple as that. If your version of treating animals was an advantage, Jainist countries would dominate the world. Yet they don't.

I found more to disagree with in the author's conservatism which I found a bit too hard-line for my liking. But still, there's intersting points, for instance:

To use these strategies on animals is to misuse them; for if animals have rights, then they have duties too. Some of them—foxes, wolves, cats, and killer whales—would be inveterate murderers and should be permanently locked up. Almost all would be habitual law-breakers. All would deserve punishments from time to time, though maybe they could hire lawyers like Steven Wise to argue that they could not possibly be blamed, since only humans are blameworthy.

Or:

And that explains, in part, the appeal of the animal-rights movement. It shifts the focus away from moral beings toward creatures in every respect less demanding—creatures like dogs, which return our affection regardless of our merits, or cats, which maintain an amiable pretense of affection while caring for no one at all (a fact always vehemently and fruitlessly denied by their keepers). The world of animals is a world without judgment, where embarrassment, remorse, guilt, and penitence are unknown, and where human beings can escape from the burden of moral emotions. In another way, therefore, those who tell us that we have no special place in the scheme of things create a place for us that is just as special. By focusing our human attitudes on animals, we are playing at God, standing always apart from and above our victims, smiling down on their innocent ways, removed from the possibility of judgment ourselves, and, in our exaltation, imagining that we confer the greatest benefit on those whom we patronize.

Why?

I don't know how others belief systems would explain that, but from a Christian perspective, humans aren't exactly the same as animals. We're like animals in that humans and animals are all creatures, and yet distinctly non-animal in that we're the only creatures made in the image of God, and given rule over all creature to promote the flourishing of life---human, animal, and plant---for God's glory. And the biblical story is that humans went so far off-course in rebellion against their Creator God that the Son of God had to become human, die, and rise again to restore our ability to care rightly for creation.

Thus, concerns to minimize animal suffering are uniquely human concerns because we /aren't/ animals, but human; and the concern itself is proof we're different from other animals.

In Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—the ontological status of animals and other life forms generally places them as part of God's creation, but humans are typically seen as having a unique, superior status. Here's a brief overview of each religion's perspective:

### Judaism In Judaism, the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) describes God creating animals and humans, with humans given dominion over animals. This is based on the Genesis narrative: - *Genesis 1:26-28*: God gives humans dominion over all living creatures. - *Genesis 2:19-20*: Adam names the animals, indicating a role of stewardship and authority.

While animals are respected and their welfare is considered (e.g., the commandment to not cause unnecessary suffering, tsa'ar ba'alei chayim), humans are seen as having a special role and responsibility.

### Christianity Christianity inherits much of its view on animals from Judaism, with additional interpretations from the New Testament: - *Genesis 1:26-28*: Same as in Judaism, humans are given dominion over animals. - *New Testament*: Jesus emphasizes the value of every creature (e.g., Matthew 10:29-31 where sparrows are valued by God), but humans are considered more valuable.

Christian thought often emphasizes stewardship and care for God's creation, including animals, but maintains the superiority of humans.

### Islam In Islam, animals are also seen as part of God's creation with humans given a special status and responsibility: - *Qur'an 6:38*: Animals are considered communities like humans and are part of God's creation. - *Qur'an 16:5-8*: Animals are created for human benefit, but humans must treat them with kindness and care.

Humans are considered superior and responsible for stewardship of the Earth and its creatures, but there is an emphasis on compassion and justice towards animals.

### Comparative Perspective - *Equality and Superiority*: In all three religions, humans are generally considered superior to animals due to their unique role and responsibilities assigned by God. Animals are valued and their welfare is important, but they do not have the same status as humans. - *Stewardship*: There is a common theme of stewardship and responsible dominion, where humans are expected to care for and protect animals and the environment. - *Respect for Life*: Despite the hierarchical view, all three religions emphasize respect for life and the importance of treating animals humanely.

Overall, animals and other life forms are respected and valued in Abrahamic religions, but humans are considered to have a unique, superior status with specific duties towards other creatures.

We end up caring about dogs and cats, while paying for the other animals to be killed and torn apart. If the same happened to dogs, people would become violent.

It would be nice if people held consistent moral beliefs.

Even the strictest Jainist can't stop from annihilating an uncountable number of tiny animals that live in, on and around us. (though to their credit, they sure do try).

I've re-read your post several times.

"Religious prescription makes it possible for otherwise not cruel people to make animals suffer. Blurring the distinction is not helpful or smart in any way."

I think there exist valid distinctions; e.g. a vet who needs to make an animal suffer temporary pain while providing long term relief is an important distinction.

However, what I've put forward is that currently, we are giving TOO much credit and distinction for people who desire cruelty upon animals (and many other things) due to religion alone; vs other arbitrary personal desires and preferences. I think we need to blur that distinction, or support it with something else than "because religion".

In other words, to me:

Group A: Inflicts temporary pain to animals for purpose of long term relief or some other quantifiable objective benefit to something or somebody somewhere

Group B: Inflicts pain to animals for no good reason / for enjoyment of cruelty / for fun / for religion. I deny your claim that people who desire harm upon animals for religious reasons alone, are "otherwise not cruel people". I think "Cruel" is precisely what they are, and I deny them using religion as valid ethical excuse that means anything else than "because I wanted to", because religion is freely chosen and freely obeyed and we remain agents of free will. Or to put it another way - what about humans? If people want to harm other humans for only religious reasons, are we still treating them as "otherwise not cruel"?

I'm willing to listen what your alternative hypothesis/point/statement is - why are people who desire cruelty upon animals for religious reasons alone "not otherwise cruel", or how DO you narrowly define cruelty then?

(and again, it took me personally 30 years to stop giving religion a culturally-conditioned, social-norms free pass on these things; and I still have to fight this ingrained reflex to not instinctively believe that "because religion" is a superior reason to "because I want to". I don't expect anybody else to make that journey in 15 minutes debating internet strangers even if they want to).

[Final note: IF your point is more along the lines of "we should understand the details of reasoning and motivations", absolutely; but I did not see that line of reasoning in your original post. My point is I see no moral distinction or superiority between "because religion" and "because I want to", and one should not be given more credence than the other -- which is not to deny that understanding the motivations in detail is a useful and positive effort]