# Can animals sin? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 26, 2002, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-animals-sin/133924 "2002-10-26T00:10:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2002, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-animals-sin/133924/41 "2002-10-29T17:20:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\* > > Is there a point in there, JT? I claimed that morality was behaving in a way not likely to cause you harm. You said (I paraphrase), “No, it’s not.”\*\* I’ve already emphasized my point – repeatedly, in fact. If the only reason you do a “moral” act is because you don’t want to risk punishment – well, that’s not morality. It’s quite the opposite. > [@](#): > > \*\*And? Can you give a conclusive definition of morality that would preclude self-interest as its basis? \*\* All we have to do is point out that there are situations wherein self-interest is NOT the basis. Consider the anti-Nazi symphathizers who sheltered Jews during the Holocaust. They would have been severely punished for their deeds, yet they did it anyway, and the world applaud’s their selflessness. In contrast, if a mother lets her newborn baby drown because she doesn’t want to risk harm to herself – however small that risk may be – then any moral person would agree that her actions were immoral and reprehensible. > [@](#): > > **Can you demonstrate that morality is absolute, rather than situational?** Now you’re changing the topic. The question at hand isn’t whether morality is absolute. The question – **which you yourself raised** – is whether morality is merely motivated by self-interest. It isn’t. If you only avoid wrongdoing because you’re looking out for yourself, then that’s selfishness, not morality. > [@](#): > > \*\* > And before you go all judgemental, I consider being guilty and/or being chased by the police for felony sexual assault a punishment. \*\* In other words, if you lived someplace where there were no police, then sexual assault would be miraculously justified. As I said, your “morality” say that if you can get away with rape, without punishment or threat thereof, then it’s all hunky dory. Heck, if someone were to rape your mother, then this act would be justified as well, if we were to apply your standards of (ahem) “morality.” I wonder if your mother is proud that you feel that way. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2002, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-animals-sin/133924/42 "2002-10-29T18:21:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MrThompson \* > \*\*“Re-Animal Sacrifice: God makes it very clear to Abraham that He does not want human sacrifice. But, sacrificing that ram caught in the bushes is acceptable. The difference being that rams, bulls, etc have no souls.” > > So Jesus didn’t have a soul? \*\* I think the point is that although Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son, God did not ask that of him but asked for the sacrifice of an animal as a symbol. Jesus was true God and true man and as such had a soul and was the perfect sacrifice (God sacrificing His Son). > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MrThompson \*\*\*"This Biblical quote seems to imply that birds, at least, do not have souls: > > “And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. Are not two sparrows sold for a small coin? Yet not one of them falls without your Father’s knowledge. Even all the hairs of your head are counted. So do not be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.” Matthew, 10:28-31" > > I’m very slow today - can you show me where that implies that they don’t have souls? \*\* Matt 6:34-38: “Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life? And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these.” I see these as saying that animals and plants do not have moral responsibility or souls. Putting animals and plants on the same level like this implies that they have similar levels of morality, i.e., none. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2002, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-animals-sin/133924/43 "2002-10-29T23:09:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\* > I’ve already emphasized my point – repeatedly, in fact. If the only reason you do a “moral” act is because you don’t want to risk punishment – well, that’s not morality. It’s quite the opposite. Huh? Are you defining morality as doing actions taken without regard for your self-interest, or directly contrary to it? Is running into a wall therefore moral? Alright, I’m kidding about that last one. But, I’m still lacking a definition of moral. > [@](#): > > All we have to do is point out that there are situations wherein self-interest is NOT the basis. Consider the anti-Nazi symphathizers who sheltered Jews during the Holocaust. They would have been severely punished for their deeds, yet they did it anyway, and the world applaud’s their selflessness. In contrast, if a mother lets her newborn baby drown because she doesn’t want to risk harm to herself – however small that risk may be – then any moral person would agree that her actions were immoral and reprehensible. Gotcha. (Ya.) If you think that you will be rewarded in Heaven for such acts on Earth, than you are being self-serving. If you fear guilt, what will happen to you when the regime falls, or simply don’t want to be a person who gives innocents over to die, then there is a definite stick. For some, this stick was bigger then the percieved stick of being caught. > [@](#): > > In other words, if you lived someplace where there were no police, then sexual assault would be miraculously justified. As I said, your “morality” say that if you can get away with rape, without punishment or threat thereof, then it’s all hunky dory. Heck, if someone were to rape your mother, then this act would be justified as well, if we were to apply your standards of (ahem) “morality.” > > I wonder if your mother is proud that you feel that way. \*\* In the vast, vast majority of cases, respecting other people’s property (counting their bodies and minds here) is a safe thing to do. Trespass/vandalism on a personal level is therefore a majorly bad idea. Even discounting the idea of police, vigilante family members, or the fact that my mother has taken several self-defence classes, the simple logic of “Does this help or hurt me?” makes such an act both reprehensible and really dumb. And no, she’s actually quite pissed about by moral scale as I explained it to her. On the other hand, it got me to college with no arrests, traffic violations, or tobacco, alcohal, or drug use. So don’t knock it. Actually, go ahead and keep knocking it. If you strike it down, it will be replaced with a better, stronger one. ---
**Author:** ![Devil\_s\_Advocate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Devil\_s\_Advocate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Devil_s_Advocate)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2002, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-animals-sin/133924/44 "2002-10-30T00:47:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gigi \* > \*\*I think the point is that although Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son, God did not ask that of him but asked for the sacrifice of an animal as a symbol. Jesus was true God and true man and as such had a soul and was the perfect sacrifice (God sacrificing His Son). > > Matt 6:34-38: “Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life? And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these.” > > I see these as saying that animals and plants do not have moral responsibility or souls. Putting animals and plants on the same level like this implies that they have similar levels of morality, i.e., none. \*\* I don’t see where that quote puts animals and plants “on the same level”. And just because the Bible says that people are superior to (“worth more”) than birds, it doesn’t follow from that that birds lack souls. Show me a passage that actually says that animals are just automatons, and I’ll be impressed, if only at your ability to dig up obscure Bible quotes. Douglas Hofstadter wrote that we implicitly hold the belief that animals have souls (or consciousness, or sentience, or whatever you want to call it), but that ours are “bigger” than theirs are. I think that most people who think about these things just tend to deny one of the parts of this implicit belief (either that animals have “souls”, or that humans’ are “bigger”). ---
**Author:** ![Tygr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/df788c/32.png) [@Tygr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tygr)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2002, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-animals-sin/133924/45 "2002-10-30T22:12:47Z")
As I understand it, the answer lies in the whole “created in God’s image” business. (no need to be impressed, the exact quote isn’t that obscure) This is understood not to refer to a physiological image, but rather a spiritual one. IOW, man is created as a spiritual being, like unto God. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > **…if a mother lets her newborn baby drown because she doesn’t want to risk harm to herself – however small that risk may be – then any moral person would agree that her actions were immoral and reprehensible.** Arrrgh…wait, no, Tygr…don’t open those floodgates… Can’t stop… So, what if that baby isn’t yet born? ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2002, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-animals-sin/133924/46 "2002-10-31T01:03:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MrThompson \* > \*\*“Re-Animal Sacrifice > God makes it very clear to Abraham that He does not want human sacrifice. But, sacrificing that ram caught in the bushes is acceptable. The difference being that rams, bulls, etc have no souls.” > > So Jesus didn’t have a soul? [\*\* I’m Jewish. ; j \*\* [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2002, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-animals-sin/133924/47 "2002-10-31T01:59:58Z")
Human beings _are_ animals. If you believe that “animals have no souls”, they you are saying human beings have no souls. (Which actually I have no problem with.) If you say “animals can’t sin”, that is, animals can’t do things which are ethically wrong, then you are in effect saying that there is no such thing as an ethically wrong action, which I would have to disagree with. Did _Homo erectus_ have souls? Did Neandertals have souls? Did archaic _Homo sapiens_–before _Homo sapiens_ became _Homo sapiens sapiens_–have souls? At some point in history did a soulless automaton give birth to a little baby with a soul? Does a dog have the same capacity for abstract reasoning as a human being? I certainly don’t think so. Can a dog feel emotions, including some sort of emotional response to being scolded? And can a dog get to the point where he feels that emotional response even _before_ he’s scolded? Probably so. I think that a chimpanzee could develop more complex moral ideas than a dog can. At some point our pre-human ancestors developed a more complex capacity for abstract thought, including such concepts as empathy–recognizing that others are thinking and feeling beings the same as you are–than even chimpanzees have. Conversely, if you look at history, many biologically fully human beings didn’t seem to have ideas about morality and empathy that we now hold, such as that people who are not members of your immediate clan or tribe nonetheless deserve to be treated as thinking and feeling beings the same as you are. Hell, there are still people out there who don’t believe that. Nonetheless, over the last several thousand years, that basic idea has been expressed in a variety of religions and philosophies, and has gradually taken hold in more and more of the planet, at least nominally. But this development of ethics is not particularly susceptible to the black and white thinking of the “We have souls, but ‘animals’ don’t” sort. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-animals-sin/133924.md?page=2)