72 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
THE RELIGIOUS AND PHILOSOPHICAL TRADITIONS 
Interest in the moral status of animals is by no 
means modern. The ancient religions had much 
to say about the place that animals were to occupy 
in the cosmic scheme of things. Oriental creeds 
were, as a rule, reluctant to draw a sharp distinc- 
tion between humans and other species. All ani- 
mal lives were judged worthy of protection and 
some were thought to be sacred. The doctrine of 
transmigration left still more room for caution— 
any animal body might house a soul entitled to spe- 
cial care. The various forms of the doctrine of trans- 
migration share the thesis that a single, continu- 
ous, immaterial individual may pass from one body 
to another, which may be of the same or a differ- 
ent species. If the latter, its conduct in the earlier 
incarnation may determine the kind of body it in- 
habits next. For such reasons, the prescribed die- 
tary regimen in the Orient was frequently vegetar- 
ian. Modern influences have relaxed, but not 
wholly removed, the grip of these beliefs. 
In the West, a different tradition took root, one 
that seems to have assigned value to animals only 
as they serve human purposes. Judeo-Christian 
doctrine appears to have condoned an indiffer- 
ent, if not openly exploitative, attitude toward non- 
human animals (38,45). (For an opposing view, see 
refs. 6 and 49.) The Genesis account suggests that 
humans are the last and most perfected of God’s 
creatures. Humans alone, of all living things, bear 
the likeness of God, and receive the divine com- 
mission to exercise “dominion over the fish of the 
sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the 
cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creep- 
ing thing that creeps upon the earth” (Genesis 1:26- 
28; all Biblical references and quotations are to 
the Revised Standard Version). After the flood, God 
rewarded Noah and his sons with this blessing: 
“Every moving thing that lives shall be food for 
you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you 
everything” (Genesis 9:3). A brief Talmudic story 
indicates that Judaic practice was to the same ef- 
fect: “A calf was being taken to the slaughterer, 
when it broke away, hid his head under the Rabbi’s 
skirts, and lowed in terror. 'Go,’ said he, ‘for this 
wast thou created’ ” (12). 
These passages do not warrant the inference that 
humans are permitted to treat animals in any way 
they please. Even when suffering is inflicted as 
a means to some human end, humans are subject 
to the condition of using the animal. Wanton cru- 
elty would not be allowed. Nor is it clear just what 
human dominion includes, until the terms of a 
model ruler-subject relation are spelled out. Hu- 
mans must presumably rule well, and the good 
ruler does not take authorized but unjustified ac- 
tions. Much depends, too, on whether human sov- 
ereignty over nature is to be thought absolute or 
limited by a divine will that may have set some 
value on animals in addition to their utility for 
humans. 
In a number of passages, the scriptures seem 
to place a rein on the use of animals. Genesis con- 
firms that God had already judged the world as 
good— that is, possessed of some value— before hu- 
mans were created (Genesis 1:3,10,13,18,21). And 
on several occasions in the later books of the Old 
Testament, humans are expressly directed to show 
kindness to the animals under their control . Thus , 
“you shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out 
the grain” (Deuteronomy 25:4). And, “a righteous 
man has regard for the life of his beast, but the 
mercy of the wicked is cruel” (Proverbs 12:10). 
The most persuasive evidence for restraint may 
lie in the role-model of the good shepherd, often 
cited in both testaments. At one point, by report 
of the prophet Ezekiel, God becomes annoyed 
(Ezekiel 34:2,4): 
Ho, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding 
yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? 
. . .The weak you have not strengthened, the sick 
you have not healed, the crippled you have not' 
bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, 
the lost you have not sought, and with force and 
harshness you have ruled them. 
God’s own rule is often compared with the con- 
cern that shepherds should have for their flocks 
(Ezekiel 34:11-13; John 10:11; Luke 15:4-7). De- 
signed to show that God stands to humans as they 
stand to animals— a kind provider even if there 
are no duties to provide for them— that simile 
would fail if the shepherds could wholly disregard 
the welfare of their animals. 
