Naturalistic pantheism without animal rights?

[Brynjolfr]

Hi! I have strong naturalist pantheist leanings. However, I do not believe in animal rights, which is seen by many naturalistic pantheists as crucial (like the World Pantheism Movement, for example). I personally believe that we should care more about humans than any other species (most organisms in nature seem to care more about their own species, so I see no wrong in doing so ourselves). I simply have more sympathy towards human beings. I do, however, believe that animals should be protected from extinction and unnecessary suffering, and I do revere them as our relatives (all life on Earth has a common origin, after all). Is it possible to combine reverence of life with these views? Are my views compatible with naturalistic pantheism?

PS: This question is mainly aimed towards naturalistic pantheists.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Hi! I have strong naturalist pantheist leanings. However, I do not believe in animal rights, which is seen by many naturalistic pantheists as crucial (like the World Pantheism Movement, for example). I personally believe that we should care more about humans than any other species (most organisms in nature seem to care more about their own species, so I see no wrong in doing so ourselves). I simply have more sympathy towards human beings. I do, however, believe that animals should be protected from extinction and unnecessary suffering, and I do revere them as our relatives (all life on Earth has a common origin, after all). Is it possible to combine reverence of life with these views? Are my views compatible with naturalistic pantheism?

PS: This question is mainly aimed towards naturalistic pantheists.

Not necessarily a naturalistic pantheist, but may I ask why you don't think animals should have rights?


And to answer your question: Could it be more political than theistic reasons? Green Party may suit you well. Otherwise I'd recommend Humanism.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm somewhat torn on this. A stance like pantheism (naturalistic or otherwise) is not inherently dogmatic, meaning there is no unified agreement on the ethical implications of the precept "the universe/nature is god/deity/sacred."

On the one hand, one can interpret the universe as being an inherently amoral entity. This will tend to lead one down the path of the moral nihilist, which means things just are as they are and are devoid of moral qualities at all. This would make virtually any personal ethical stance of a pantheist permissible.

However, I'm hard-pressed to reconcile having an anthropocentric ethical framework if you regard all the universe as sacred. You're basically saying human beings are "more sacred" than the rest of the universe and that it's permissible for us to pursue our own aims at the expense of the nonhuman world. I'd like humans to exercise a little restraint and not carry the shame of my species barreling headlong into its own self-destrucion (and that of countless species and ecosystems).

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Hi! I have strong naturalist pantheist leanings. However, I do not believe in animal rights, which is seen by many naturalistic pantheists as crucial (like the World Pantheism Movement, for example). I personally believe that we should care more about humans than any other species (most organisms in nature seem to care more about their own species, so I see no wrong in doing so ourselves). I simply have more sympathy towards human beings. I do, however, believe that animals should be protected from extinction and unnecessary suffering, and I do revere them as our relatives (all life on Earth has a common origin, after all). Is it possible to combine reverence of life with these views? Are my views compatible with naturalistic pantheism?

PS: This question is mainly aimed towards naturalistic pantheists.

I would start by saying I feel that Hindu Mother Worshipers are very much like pantheists. Both of us can be categorized and placed in the same box.

For me and have always seen this issue as environment vs animal rights. I have always fallen on the side of the environment. I also put human beings well being above that of different spices. Still this does not in anyway diminish the importance of ethical treatment for animals.

 

[Me Myself]

Hi! I have strong naturalist pantheist leanings. However, I do not believe in animal rights, which is seen by many naturalistic pantheists as crucial (like the World Pantheism Movement, for example). I personally believe that we should care more about humans than any other species (most organisms in nature seem to care more about their own species, so I see no wrong in doing so ourselves). I simply have more sympathy towards human beings. I do, however, believe that animals should be protected from extinction and unnecessary suffering, and I do revere them as our relatives (all life on Earth has a common origin, after all). Is it possible to combine reverence of life with these views? Are my views compatible with naturalistic pantheism?

PS: This question is mainly aimed towards naturalistic pantheists.

Of course it is posible.

Now I am not sure what "naturailstic" pantheism would be. I am a panentheist, so I would say I am a pantheist, with an extra belief xD (maybe the "naturalistic" part missing?)

I also value a human being far higher than an animal, but I do believe animal rights are important.

While I don´t value the life of a pig over that of a human, I do value the pig´s life over a human idea of liking the taste of bacon.

What is your view on that? Are the other animal´s pain so unimportant that sheer pleasure should be reason enough for a human being to kill them?

 

[Brynjolfr]

Not necessarily a naturalistic pantheist,

But I do feel oneness and belonging to nature and the universe, and I am a staunch naturalist (i.e. I don't believe in supernatural things, like deities and spirits). Are animal rights really so important to nat. pantheism that if you remove them from it, it becomes a different worldview?

but may I ask why you don't think animals should have rights?

I see animal rights as a waste of time and resources that could have been spent on preventing human suffering: starvation, disease, poverty, discrimination, war, etc. These issues kill a lot of people every year, yet some people feel that animals somehow are in urgent need of rights. Imagine that you are on a sinking ship and some of the passengers starts filling the life-boats with animals so that some humans are left behind to drown. That's how I feel about animal rights. I just feel more sympathy towards my fellow humans, that's all. Animals should be protected from unfair treatment, but giving them the same rights as us is just wasteful. A few animal rights activists are even misanthropic (i.e. they think the world would be better off without us). I dislike them as much as I dislike nazis, stalinists and other fascists. They make my blood boil!

And to answer your question: Could it be more political than theistic reasons?. Green Party may suit you well. Otherwise I'd recommend Humanism.

I think it could. However, I don't see what humanism or a political party would be able to offer me spiritually. Besides, the green party here in Sweden is too right-wing for my taste (I'm an eco-socialist).

For me and have always seen this issue as environment vs animal rights. I have always fallen on the side of the environment. I also put human beings well being above that of different spices. Still this does not in anyway diminish the importance of ethical treatment for animals.

I agree with you 100%

Now I am not sure what "naturailstic" pantheism would be.

I can't post URLs since I haven't made 15 (or above) posts yet, so I'll recommend Wikipedia's article on the subject.

While I don´t value the life of a pig over that of a human, I do value the pig´s life over a human idea of liking the taste of bacon.

What is your view on that? Are the other animal´s pain so unimportant that sheer pleasure should be reason enough for a human being to kill them?

This is not just about thinking that meat tastes good. It's about human survival. If we are to support all human life on this planet we must eat plants and meat. We cannot solely rely on plants, as it'd take up too much space to grow everything that we need. It would have bad impact on the ecosystem. EDIT: Yes, animal farming requires the growing of huge crops as well (farm animals need a lot of food). That's why we have to increase our intake of wild meat, and also improve the environment so that wild animals can become more plentiful. As long as we exploit (a harsh word, but you know what I mean) nature in an environmentally friendly and sustainable way I see nothing wrong with it. And if we develop more efficient ways of ending animal lives there won't be any pain and suffering for them at all.

Being one with nature equals participating in it (i.e. use it's resources for survival) like any other living being.

Thanks everyone for your responds!

 

[idav]

Hi! I have strong naturalist pantheist leanings. However, I do not believe in animal rights, which is seen by many naturalistic pantheists as crucial (like the World Pantheism Movement, for example). I personally believe that we should care more about humans than any other species (most organisms in nature seem to care more about their own species, so I see no wrong in doing so ourselves). I simply have more sympathy towards human beings. I do, however, believe that animals should be protected from extinction and unnecessary suffering, and I do revere them as our relatives (all life on Earth has a common origin, after all). Is it possible to combine reverence of life with these views? Are my views compatible with naturalistic pantheism?

PS: This question is mainly aimed towards naturalistic pantheists.

I'm not really sure you need to be in animal rights movements to be pantheist. I have a deep appreciation for the diversity of life so wouldn't purposely or knowingly have ill intentions over the environment. We all have to consume no matter what species you are so there will always be death and rebirth which is inevitable. Just like in the past cultures, I don't think it is a bad idea to give appreciation for the sustenance we are granted and be respectful towards other species when possible.

 

[Quintessence]

I see animal rights as a waste of time and resources that could have been spent on preventing human suffering: starvation, disease, poverty, discrimination, war, etc. These issues kill a lot of people every year, yet some people feel that animals somehow are in urgent need of rights. Imagine that you are on a sinking ship and some of the passengers starts filling the life-boats with animals so that some humans are left behind to drown. That's how I feel about animal rights.

The irony is that these problems of human suffering you mention are partly or largely symptomatic of our failure to sensitively consider ecological realities. Humans depend on the nonhuman world, period. If you must be anthropocentric about it, at least realize that with failure to take into consideration ecological reality - and this includes at least some (but not all) animal rights issues - we're screwing over the entire lifeboat for human and nonhumans alike. This makes animal rights (and a land ethic) not even remotely a waste of time and resources. If our planet's ecosystems collapse, so do we. Isn't this a no-brainer? Compatibility with naturalistic pantheism is almost a non-issue, all things considered. Human flourishing is going to require it, and nonhuman flourishing definitely requires it.

Also, I'd note that it isn't necessarily about giving the nonhuman world "the same" rights as humans. Even different humans don't have the same rights as other humans. It's about being wise instead of barreling headlong into our own self-destruction and being a catalyst for the sixth mass extinction.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

But I do feel oneness and belonging to nature and the universe, and I am a staunch naturalist (i.e. I don't believe in supernatural things, like deities and spirits). Are animal rights really so important to nat. pantheism that if you remove them from it, it becomes a different worldview?

No, I meant I wasn't.

I see animal rights as a waste of time and resources that could have been spent on preventing human suffering: starvation, disease, poverty, discrimination, war, etc. These issues kill a lot of people every year, yet some people feel that animals somehow are in urgent need of rights. Imagine that you are on a sinking ship and some of the passengers starts filling the life-boats with animals so that some humans are left behind to drown. That's how I feel about animal rights. I just feel more sympathy towards my fellow humans, that's all. Animals should be protected from unfair treatment, but giving them the same rights as us is just wasteful. A few animal rights activists are even misanthropic (i.e. they think the world would be better off without us). I dislike them as much as I dislike nazis, stalinists and other fascists. They make my blood boil!

I'm one of those animal rights activists that believes the world would be more peaceful (not necessarily better because...well... I don't believe in better or worse) without us.

As much as I agree that humans are suffering like usual, isn't it obvious that nonhumans have been suffering worse and for a longer period of time? They've been a slave to us, worse than a slave.

Oh well, all entitled to their beliefs I guess, so have fun...

I think it could. However, I don't see what humanism or a political party would be able to offer me spiritually. Besides, the green party here in Sweden is too right-wing for my taste (I'm an eco-socialist).

Humanism is a philosophy, not a religion or a political party, but they act in similar ways of both: they act on religion and they act a lot on politics for empathy for all humans.

 

[Brynjolfr]

The irony is that these problems of human suffering you mention are partly or largely symptomatic of our failure to sensitively consider ecological realities. Humans depend on the nonhuman world, period. If you must be anthropocentric about it, at least realize that with failure to take into consideration ecological reality - and this includes at least some (but not all) animal rights issues - we're screwing over the entire lifeboat for human and nonhumans alike. This makes animal rights (and a land ethic) not even remotely a waste of time and resources. If our planet's ecosystems collapse, so do we. Isn't this a no-brainer? Compatibility with naturalistic pantheism is almost a non-issue, all things considered. Human flourishing is going to require it, and nonhuman flourishing definitely requires it.

Also, I'd note that it isn't necessarily about giving the nonhuman world "the same" rights as humans. Even different humans don't have the same rights as other humans. It's about being wise instead of barreling headlong into our own self-destruction and being a catalyst for the sixth mass extinction.

Saving the environment and ecosystems of the globe can be done without an animal rights cause (environmentalism and animal rights are not the same). Simply protecting animals from extinction and unneccesary suffering will do. Anything more than that (like giving them a right to life, for example) is not neccesary.

No, I meant I wasn't.

Ah, okay. My bad.

As much as I agree that humans are suffering like usual, isn't it obvious that nonhumans have been suffering worse and for a longer period of time? They've been a slave to us,

Even though animal suffering is horrible, I feel more empathy towards my own kind and therefore find human suffering to be much worse.

worse than a slave.

That's a slap in the face towards every human slave in past and present history. Humans have far more complex emotions and cognitive abilities than other animals, and probably perceives slavery much more negatively than animals do. A human slave can even get so unhappy with his situation that he commits suicide. That's depressing!

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Improving the environment and ecosystems of the globe can be done without an animal rights cause. Simply protecting animals from extinction and unneccesary suffering will do. Anything more than that (like giving them a right to life, for example) is not neccesary.



Ah, okay. My bad.



Even though animal suffering is horrible, I feel more empathy towards my own kind and therefore find human suffering to be much worse.

That's a slap in the face towards every human slave in past and present history. Humans have far more complex emotions and cognitive abilities than other animals, and probably perceives slavery much more negatively than animals do. A human slave can even get so unhappy with his situation that he commits suicide. That's depressing!

I wasn't saying slaves didn't suffer, but at the same time they weren't eaten.

Sorry, I should stop discussing this because I can get too aggressive in these debates, I don't want to make enemies, man.

 

[Quintessence]

Saving the environment and ecosystems of the globe can be done without an animal rights cause (environmentalism and animal rights are not the same). Simply protecting animals from extinction and unneccesary suffering will do. Anything more than that (like giving them a right to life, for example) is not neccesary.

Oh. I think I am defining "animal rights" more broadly than you are, because I would include protection from extinction and unnecessary as a subcategory of animal rights. :sorry1:

The snags come in defining what is "unnecessary." All too often, peripheral human interests trump vital interests of nonhuman animals. It disgusts me, because as a pantheist I see these things as sacred and we destroy them for our own extraneous self-gratification, not for our survival as a species. Some self-gratification wouldn't be such a bad thing if there weren't seven bloody billion of us, but our numbers are too high for ecosystems to sustain our peripheral "needs" (and probably our vital needs).

Pardon if I've gotten soapboxish on this; I just really dislike ethical frameworks that are anthropocentric, in no small part because I'm pantheistic.

 

[mycorrhiza]

I personally think that animals rights should be included, as pantheism isn't an antropocentric religion. If we revere the Universe and the one substance, we should treat all life forms with equal respect. It's not like animal rights are hindering human rights. Giving up meat isn't difficult at all, and it's a huge act of respect towards animals. I don't miss meat at all, and I used to live on nearly meat alone.

What you said about growing more crops if we were to stop eating meat is false and a common misunderstanding. Judging by the huge amount of meat we use, and the even larger amount of crops that are used to feed the animals we later kill, we would actually need to grow less crops if we stopped eating meat.

"Unnecessary suffering" would include not being killed for meat, as we do not need meat to survive. We don't benefit from meat in any way, and the meat industry itself is very harmful towards our environment. So while meat eating is natural, it is also harmful to both animals and nature. When killed in the wild, shots often don't kill the animals instantly, causing them unnecessary suffering, so I wouldn't say that's a good alternative either.

If you do not see animals as worthy of this respect, at least you can see to the environment.


I do agree with you, however, that our green party is too right-wing. They clearly haven't understood that capitalism can't be combined with sustainability as it depends on expansion. Nice too see a fellow pantheistic Swede.

 

[Brynjolfr]

I personally think that animals rights should be included, as pantheism isn't an antropocentric religion. If we revere the Universe and the one substance, we should treat all life forms with equal respect. It's not like animal rights are hindering human rights. Giving up meat isn't difficult at all, and it's a huge act of respect towards animals. I don't miss meat at all, and I used to live on nearly meat alone.

So just because we have the cognitive and moral ability to skip meat, we should do it? You're basically saying that we're above nature and more special than other species. Sounds anthropocentric to me. Why are humans so special that they should avoid meat?

What you said about growing more crops if we were to stop eating meat is false and a common misunderstanding.

Source?

"Unnecessary suffering" would include not being killed for meat, as we do not need meat to survive. We don't benefit from meat in any way, and the meat industry itself is very harmful towards our environment. So while meat eating is natural, it is also harmful to both animals and nature. When killed in the wild, shots often don't kill the animals instantly, causing them unnecessary suffering, so I wouldn't say that's a good alternative either.

Killing an animal with a firearm is much more merciful than killing it with fangs and claws. An ethical human hunter seeks to reduce pain and suffering as much as possible, while the non-human hunter doesn't care about that at all. If you've seen nature documentaries on TV I'm sure you'll agree that a bear or a lion is MUCH more brutal than a human could ever be (we don't have the strength, nor the "tools", for that)! Lions strangle their prey for crying out loud! Why shouldn't humans have the same right to hunt as other predators, especially when we can do it more ethically than them?

Humans can kill instantly. Can a lion do that?

If you do not see animals as worthy of this respect, at least you can see to the environment.

Here's a quote from a document about native american views on nature:

"Hunters must spiritually prepare for the hunt so they can be
deserving, be respectful and humble during the hunt, and be reverent and grateful after the hunt."

Are native americans disrespectful toward animals for this? I bet their reverence and respect for nature is superior to both yours and mine!

Here's a link to the document: hxxp://xxx.uwosh.edu/facstaff/barnhill/ES-243/pp%20outline%20Native%20American.pdf

(replace "xx" with "tt" and "xxx" with "www").

An extremely interesting read (a little short, though)! I agree with most of what's written in it.

My point: it's possible to be respectful towards animals AND use them as a resource.

I do agree with you, however, that our green party is too right-wing. They clearly haven't understood that capitalism can't be combined with sustainability as it depends on expansion.

That's why I'm a member of Vänsterpartiet ("the left party", in English. A Swedish socialist party)!

Nice too see a fellow pantheistic Swede.

Never thought I'd be deemed a pantheist by someone who probably thinks I'm the least pantheistic person in the world. I'm honoured

 

[Me Myself]

This is not just about thinking that meat tastes good. It's about human survival. If we are to support all human life on this planet we must eat plants and meat. We cannot solely rely on plants, as it'd take up too much space to grow everything that we need. It would have bad impact on the ecosystem. EDIT: Yes, animal farming requires the growing of huge crops as well (farm animals need a lot of food). That's why we have to increase our intake of wild meat, and also improve the environment so that wild animals can become more plentiful. As long as we exploit (a harsh word, but you know what I mean) nature in an environmentally friendly and sustainable way I see nothing wrong with it. And if we develop more efficient ways of ending animal lives there won't be any pain and suffering for them at all.

Being one with nature equals participating in it (i.e. use it's resources for survival) like any other living being.

Thanks everyone for your responds!

Actualy, that is not true, but this is not the thread for that I guess, it would go off subject.

It would be far better for the ecosystems to stop eating meat alltogether. Actually, the generators of the vast majority of methane are factory bred cows farting too much. (I am not even making this up )

The UN wanted to increase bug consumption as an alternative some time back, as it would be far more ecologicaly friendly.

Now, for bug rights, I ain´t fighting

 

[Brynjolfr]

Actualy, that is not true, but this is not the thread for that I guess, it would go off subject.

It would be far better for the ecosystems to stop eating meat alltogether. Actually, the generators of the vast majority of methane are factory bred cows farting too much. (I am not even making this up )

The UN wanted to increase bug consumption as an alternative some time back, as it would be far more ecologicaly friendly.

Now, for bug rights, I ain´t fighting

I'm all for eating bugs. I'd eat it on a regular basis if I could buy it at the local store. Good for the environment, full of proteins and tasty if properly seasoned

 

[mycorrhiza]

So just because we have the cognitive and moral ability to skip meat, we should do it? You're basically saying that we're above nature and more special than other species. Sounds anthropocentric to me. Why are humans so special that they should avoid meat?

We have the choice to not kill for food, other animals don't. We have grocery stores, and thus any killing of animals is causing unnecessary death and suffering, as any killing we do is unnecessary. Animal farming is causing quite a lot of damage to the environment and is one of the main causes for greenhouse gases.

Source?

I'll look for one later, but I guess you could find one on Miljöpartiets homepage. As we need to first feed the animals and then eat the animals, we're wasting resources. Instead, we could eat the vegetables and beans that we feed to the animals directly and thus we would need to grow less crops. A lot of the rain forest has been cut down to make place for grazing and fodder production.

Killing an animal with a firearm is much more merciful than killing it with fangs and claws. An ethical human hunter seeks to reduce pain and suffering as much as possible, while the non-human hunter doesn't care about that at all. If you've seen nature documentaries on TV I'm sure you'll agree that a bear or a lion is MUCH more brutal than a human could ever be (we don't have the strength, nor the "tools", for that)! Lions strangle their prey for crying out loud! Why shouldn't humans have the same right to hunt as other predators, especially when we can do it more ethically than them?

Humans can kill instantly. Can a lion do that?

As I stated above, we can choose not to kill. Lions can't survive without meat, but we can, and thus the most respectful decision is to not shorten the lives of animals.

Here's a quote from a document about native american views on nature:

"Hunters must spiritually prepare for the hunt so they can be
deserving, be respectful and humble during the hunt, and be reverent and grateful after the hunt."

Are native americans disrespectful toward animals for this? I bet their reverence and respect for nature is superior to both yours and mine!

An extremely interesting read (a little short, though)! I agree with most of what's written in it.

My point: it's possible to be respectful towards animals AND use them as a resource.

If we apply the same basics to humans: Can we both be respectful towards humans and hunt them for food despite not having any need to hunt them for food? Traditionally, Native Americans had to kill animals to survive, but seeing as most of them also have grocery stores available, killing an animal can no longer be part of "respect".

That's why I'm a member of Vänsterpartiet ("the left party", in English. A Swedish socialist party)!

I don't like the Vänsterpartiet very much, but their new leader seems like a cool guy. I did vote for them in the last election, though.

Never thought I'd be deemed a pantheist by someone who probably thinks I'm the least pantheistic person in the world. I'm honoured

Definitely not the least pantheist person at all. There are many pantheists who think that it can be combined with meat eating.

 

[mycorrhiza]

It would be nice if you would consider to at least eat less meat, buy ecological meat instead of regular meat, etc. The difference between ecologic meat and regular meat is huge when it comes to pollution and animal treatment, and eating a little less meat is not really a big sacrifice when we see the benefits.

Any step in the right direction is a good step, though. The meat industry is awful towards out beautiful Earth.

While I don't consider meat eating compatible with pantheism, many do, and we're all hypocrites anyway. Even though I don't eat meat, I still eat chocolate, which also is bad for the environment. Chocolate isn't compatible with pantheism either IMO, but I'm a hypocrite and I can say that I don't know a single person who isn't. We should always strive to become better people, though, even though we can never fully follow our own beliefs.

 

[idav]

It would be nice if you would consider to at least eat less meat, buy ecological meat instead of regular meat, etc. The difference between ecologic meat and regular meat is huge when it comes to pollution and animal treatment, and eating a little less meat is not really a big sacrifice when we see the benefits.

Any step in the right direction is a good step, though. The meat industry is awful towards out beautiful Earth.

While I don't consider meat eating compatible with pantheism, many do, and we're all hypocrites anyway. Even though I don't eat meat, I still eat chocolate, which also is bad for the environment. Chocolate isn't compatible with pantheism either IMO, but I'm a hypocrite and I can say that I don't know a single person who isn't. We should always strive to become better people, though, even though we can never fully follow our own beliefs.

Protein is what we need most of for the day more than any nutrient or vitamin. We were built with a necessity to eat meat and plus I don't have the heart to tell a lion and snake to eat tofu.

 

[Quintessence]

Humans eating meat would not particularly be an issue if there were not so many of us. It would also be less of an issue if we let our livestock live decent lives before we slaughter them. It's my understanding that the reason why conditions are so horrible for our food animals is because we pack them into small spaces to keep up production.