Does a religious affiliation dictate how one views animals? (QA7)

          When thinking of someone’s morality it is often derived from religious affiliations in the determination and perspective of what is right and wrong. For example, a Catholic may blindly accept their religion’s authority and to be a ‘good Catholic’ one must constantly embrace their ideology because that is how ‘God’ insists they behave. To this end they must look down on gays and abortion, which are two of the most popular issues in politics today. Had they never been religious they probably wouldn’t have had these negative connotations which evidently arise by social pressures of authority and peers. Regardless of whether the issue is right or wrong by means of fairness and analysis, it can be seen that religious acceptance will eventually develop an idea of what good moral standing is. 

Can this effect someone’s view on animals however? In Christianity, man is created in the image of God, which in turn means they are similar to God. They might not be equal to him, but they definitely have the reassurance of self-importance by this fact. This sense of self however seems to mean that they are separated from the animal kingdom and they are their own superior group, Catholics especially. I can remember going to Catholic mass with my girlfriend last Easter (for her to appease her family [they basically just go because their grandfather is quite religious]) and having them play music with the lyrics saying something along the lines of, “we are the most holy people on Earth.” Another thought that made me raise this question was when my brother was going to Sunday School he asked the pastor if animals went to heaven. He said no. This  could be another reason why I disliked authority and ridiculous religious principles because most dogs I meet are better than most humans I meet. They are protective, loyal, and if you hurt by accident by stepping on their tail will not retaliate with aggression. To this end dogs are more Christ-like than followers of the Catholic faith from what I have witnessed. 

It is in this sense that religious perspective can then view that animals are lesser as they cannot go to heaven or Catholics by having a heightened self-importance which can make one believe they are above the animals. In that case, killing them is not necessarily wrong but can be viewed as God’s will. He created them for us to eat otherwise why would they be here? This is of course taking on a view of Christian creationism which is absurd due to the constant reinforcement in scientific observation that evolution is possible, has had happened, and is still happening. The question though of animals being treated differently by a religious affiliation is yes and for partial and self-focused reasons. 

Is hunting morally wrong? (QA7)

Hunting on the most basic of levels seems to be justified in terms of past historic conditions. Today, however it seems to be more a pleasure with game hunting and such (and of course we have poaching which is wrong morally and by the law). I was discussing this topic with my housemate who is a environmental studies major. In the past hunting was a way to get one’s dinner for the night. Native Americans would hunt buffalo by herding them over cliffs, yet they still had a deep connection and respect for all things around them. In regards to ethics today, it seems that the killing of animals is immoral. I still eat meat, although have considered becoming a vegetarian (although I will never eat veal), but I don’t think there is any way to justify my actions in support of killing for food when there are so many alternative ways to still get protein. In the same way, I supposed meat is similar to smoking cigarettes; you know you shouldn’t smoke, but you smoke anyway [if you are a smoker]. 

Game hunting I initially thought was an immoral practice, although their are some benefits to hunting which may assist with protecting the environment. To this extent could hunting be a force for good paradoxically? Fisheries are created for the breeding of fish in lakes which are in turn helping population control by rising populations of fish in ecosystems. Many of the fish die on the way of transport, but the ones that survive go and replenish the stock of the wild. Now it may seem that hunting would be bad in this aspect as it is depleting the stock, but the agencies that are replenishing may very well be putting more fish in lakes and rivers and, therefore, actually helping the environment. This is all funded by hunting associations which, I assume, are required to regulate hunters in the first place so environments can be protected.

It seems then that game hunting can help keep environments functioning, which thus protects animals and biodiversity, which is then morally good. Although a some fish have to die, the greater goal of keeping the ecosystem functioning and healthy keeps alive, which is similar to many situations in historical circumstances. Could we get to a point however, where instead of having regulations, people are just eager to assist the welfare of the environment because they know it is for there own benefit? That seems to be the biggest problem of our age and a constant threat to the ideas of big business which we are forced to bow down to.