HELEN AIZCORBE DELGADO 2012 Delito: Extorción

The concepts of separation and dominion of humans over nature which are the pillars of anthropocentric views are also common in the teachings of various modern religions.21 In Christian religious teachings, the concept of human dominion over nonhuman nature has emanated from the book of Genesis of the Holy Bible which states:

―And God went on to say: ―Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and

17 _{In this work human behavior can be explained in terms of human values, interests and thoughts. Although this} chapter argues that anthropocentric view is one of the major causes of loss of biodiversity, it does not argue that human beings, by being guided anthropocentric notions united against nonhuman nature. There are lots of injustices among human beings themselves based on power, gender, property and other differences.

18 _{Mary Midgley, ‗The End of Anthropocentrism‘, in Robin Attfield and Andrew Besley (1994) Philosophy and the} Natural Environment, Cambridge University Press, p.104.

19

Ibid, p.111. (Original emphasis)

20 _{Daniel Quinn, Ishmael: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit (1995) 21, cited in Peter Burdon (2011), Earth} jurisprudence: Private Property and Earth Community, PhD Thesis, The University of Adelaide, p.47.

21 _{Only the viewpoints of Christianity and Islam are discussed here briefly, as these are the commonest religions in} Ethiopia.

33 the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.‖22

This biblical verse is interpreted to prescribe both separation and dominion. Man was made in the image of God and hence unique from the rest of the creation of God, which was not created in God‘s image.23

Man also got the blessing of subduing the Earth with all its inhabitants.24 These biblical grounds were used by some thinkers for the distinction between humans and the rest of nature. According to Michael Northcott, a significant number of thinkers have based the distinction between humanity and the rest of creatures ―on religious grounds in Western Christianity such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas who have emphasized the dominion over Creation given to Adam and Eve as creatures made in the image of God.‖25 For instance, in the fifth century St. Augustine argued that ―[t]here is no legal or moral tie of any kind between man and animal.‖26

Here St. Augustine emphasized the separation between humans and other animals in that, humans are not necessarily connected to animals and have no obligation to care for the latter, because humans are superior to animals and treat them (animals) without any legal or moral responsibility. Analyzing the views of St. Augustine, Passmore writes, ―[e]ventually Augustine came to the conclusion that God was quite unconcerned about the human treatment of Nature, and was only concerned with issues involving people and the Church.‖27

According to St. Augustine, God cares only for humans but not the rest of His creation, as He created the latter only for the enjoyment of the former. It is not difficult to imagine the implications of Augustine‘s teaching in the relationships that humans create with nonhuman nature.

22 _{New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Wachtower Bible and Tract Society of the New York Inc., Genesis} 1: 26. (Unless otherwise stated, citations are from this source.)

23

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. [Genesis 2: 7, King James Version] It is this breath of God that seemed to have led thinkers and religious teachers to believe that only man has an immortal soul. For instance, Descartes argued on this line. (See René Descartes (1976), Discourse on Method and the Meditations, Penguin, cited in Gillespie, supra note 5, p.11.)

24 _{See Genesis 1:28.}

25 _{Michael Northcott, ‗Christianity‘, in Callicott and Frodeman, supra note 3, p.149.}

26 _{Augustine, The City of God (Clark, Edinburgh, 1877), p.31, cited in Gillespie, supra note 5, p.74.} 27

34 St. Thomas Aquinas also suggested that: ―[i]t matters not how man behaves to animals, because God has subjected all things to man‘s power.‖28

In relation to this ‗absolute‘ power of humans on the nonhuman nature, Aquinas argued that the only reason for which humans should be concerned about cruelty to animals, is that it may lead to cruelty against humans. He continues writing, ―[t]hrough being cruel to animals, one becomes cruel to men.‖29

On this account Aquinas‘ concern was avoiding a cruel treatment to animals not for the sake of the animals themselves but for the sake of humans. Similar teachings are found in the writings of the sixteenth century Cornelius Agrippa. He argued that ―[m]an has a supreme destiny beyond the common range of other creatures,‖30 indicating the dichotomy between humans and the rest of nature.

The teachings of these and other thinkers have influenced the worldviews of various societies in the world, especially in Christian dominated societies. They have also contributed to undermining interconnectedness in nature that has facilitated the existence of all life on Earth. Based on these conceptions humans gave a different and special value for themselves; expressed in great importance and self-love at the expense of others. Self-love is not in itself a problem. In this regard, Joseph Butler contends ―the trouble with human beings is not really that they love themselves too much; they ought to love themselves more. The trouble is simply that they don‘t love others enough.‖31 The argument in this chapter aligns Butler‘s contention. The source of the problem of loss of biodiversity does not merely lie in self-love of humans, but it lies in giving less significance to biodiversity. That is, while humans have the capacity to reverse loss of biodiversity by developing a system that could facilitate the harmonious coexistence of all life on Earth, they failed to do so. Humans‘ self-idolizing and lack of respect and concern for the rest of nature has shaped or defined the type of relationship that humans established with nonhuman nature. With terrific capacity to affect his environment and other creatures, with enormous self- love and self-importance and with little consideration for others, the human has continued to be a

28 _{Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, in the English Dominican Fathers (Burns and Oates, 1928), Vol. 1, Q} 64.1 and 65.3, cited in Ibid, p.74.

29 Ibid.

30 _{Cornelius Agrippa, ‗On the Occult Philosophy‘, in George Hersey (1976), Pythagorean Palaces, Cornell} University Press, p.904.

31 _{Joseph Butler (1969) Butler‟s Sermons, cited in Midgley, ‗The End of Anthropocentrism?‘ in Attfield and Belsey,} supra note 18, p.103.

35 threat to nonhuman nature.32 On the other hand, if this great capacity is guided in the right direction, the human has the ability to reverse problems of loss of biodiversity for the good of all – where all life forms lead a decent life.

Religious teachings were not independent from thinking and teachings of ancient and medieval philosophers and they influenced each other to a large extent. The influences of philosophers and thinkers on the religious teachings were not unidirectional. They were complex and in many instances indirect. Greek philosophy had greatly influenced the Roman legal system. On the other hand, ―the Roman Catholic Church has been influenced substantially by Roman legal theory.‖33

Individual thinkers‘ influence was also significant. For instance, ―Plato was a major influence on the Church, particularly through Augustine and his successors.‖34

St. Thomas Aquinas ―applied Aristotelian Categories to theology, in an attempt to develop it into a logical system. It is widely believed that Aquinas based his theology on Aristotle and in the process developed an Aristotelian theology.‖35

Addressing the relationship between Aristotle and Aquinas, Ralph McInery notes: ―[i]t has been said that without Thomas, Aristotle would be mute; it can equally well be said that without Aristotle, Thomas would be unintelligible.‖36 These facts show the roles played by both the Christian Church and the ancient and medieval period philosophers in influencing each other in strengthening and disseminating human separation from the rest of nonhuman nature and their dominion over the latter.

The Christian Church also played a pivotal role in shaping the Western culture, especially the medieval Western culture. This is demonstrated in the dominant legal, societal, psychological and attitudinal framing which emerged from the West. One is the major influence of Church teaching. The Christian religion, due to its closeness to the Western culture, has largely contributed in the furtherance of the conception of humanity‘s mastery and dominance over nature in the West. As Lynn White argued, especially in its Western form, ―Christianity is the

32 _{This does not, however, mean that humans will benefit indefinitely from these activities. Eventually, all} organisms, including humans will be affected from these human activities.

33 Gordon Arthur (2006) Law, Liberty and Church, Ashgate Publishing Company, p.4. 34 Ibid, p.59.

35 Ibid, p.191. 36

36 most anthropocentric religion the world has seen.‖37

White criticizes Christianity for establishing a dualism of man and nature by destroying the ancient pagan animism and thereby facilitating the exploitation of nature by man.38 From White‘s analysis it is evident that the conception of man‘s mastery over nature and human-nature dualism has assisted ecological degradation and loss of biodiversity by man.

It could be safely concluded that, encouraged by Christian teachings and the views of prominent ‗Western‘ thinkers, humans have toiled very hard for their wellbeing at the expense of the rest of nature. On this account, theologian Gloria Schaab writes:

―It is a particular interpretation of this command to subdue and to have dominion that seems to have given license to the human community to ravage and despoil the natural environment. It enables human beings to look upon the environment as having only instrumental value – that is, as valuable solely in terms of what it supplies the human being.39

The cumulative effect of all these views motivated humans to believe that, as Berry contends, ―[a]ll the world was for humans, humans were for themselves.‖40

Berry‘s contention evidently tells us the type of relationship that humans established with the natural world. That is, the relation based on unidirectional exploitation of nature by humans without the necessary care, in a responsible manner, to nature. So long as human-nature relation is guided by such a philosophy, it is not surprising that nature ended up in ecological crisis; one of the manifestations is loss of biological diversity.

Religious teachings which have facilitated ecological crisis are not limited to Christianity. Though not as much as Christianity, Islam has also been criticized for being anthropocentric and for valuing nature instrumentally.41 The bases for these critiques were verses from the Qur‘an. The Qur‘an has nearly similar statements as the Bible about man‘s supremacy over all other creatures, including the angels. Qur‘an 2: 34 states that: ―And behold, We said to the angels:

37 _{Lynn White, ‗The Historic Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis‘, SCIENCE, 10 March 1967, Volume 155 No. 3767, p.} 1205.

38 Ibid.

39 _{Gloria Schaab, ‗Beyond Dominion and Stewardship‘, in Peter Buron (ed.) (2011), Exploring Wild Law: The} Philosophy of Earth jurisprudence, Wakefield Press, p.107.

40 _{Forward by Thomas Berry in Cormac Cullinan (2002), Wild Law: Governing People for Earth, Siber Ink, p.ix.} 41

37 ‗Bow down to Adam‘ and they bowed down.‖42

The Qur‘an also states that: ―We have indeed created man in the best of molds,‖43 showing man‘s superior position and the difference between humans and other nonhuman organisms. With respect to the creation of man in the image of God, Nomanul Haq claims that the Qur‘an, unlike the Bible which explicitly declares the creation of man in the image of God, reflects this idea by implication.44 In this regard, Nomanul cites several verses from Qur‘an in support of his argument that the entire bounty of nature has been created for the sake of human beings.45 Like the Bible, ―[w]ithin the hierarchy of Creation, the Qur‘an [also] depicts humans as occupying a special and privileged status.‖46

Both Christianity and Islam, though they do not take exclusive responsibility, have contributed their share in shaping societal attitude and for the rise of the myth of separation of humans from nature and their dominion over the natural world. Irrespective of these facts, some writers argue that it is not the essence of the Holy Scriptures but the way they are interpreted and applied that has contributed to the development of the notions of separation between humans and nature as well as human dominion over nature.47 This perspective, where the Holy Scriptures support the systemic functions of Earth by placing humans as part of nature, and giving them special responsibility to care for all creatures on Earth rather than masters to wantonly destroy nature, will be discussed in Chapter 5. It is one of the central points of this work that humans have nonreciprocal responsibilities towards the nonhuman nature so as to have an Earth that belongs to all and is a safer place for all.

42 _{Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of Glorious Qur‟an: Text, Translation and Commentary,} www.islamicbulletin.org, accessed on 07 February 2011.

43_{Ibid, 95: 4.} 44

S. Nomanul Haq, ‗Islam‘, in Dale Jamieson (2001), A Companion to Environmental Philosophy, Blackwell, p.111. Qur‘an 15: 29 states that: ―When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit,...‖ In his commentary to this verse of the Qur‘an, Abdullah explains that the breathing of Allah‘s Spirit into man, i.e., the faculty of God-like knowledge and will, which, if rightly used, would give man superiority over other creatures. (See Ali, supra note 42, p.167.)

45 _{See Ibid, p.111.}

46 _{Richard Foltz (2006), Animals in Islamic Tradition and Muslim Cultures, Oneworld, p.15.}

47 _{For instance, see Gillespie, supra note 5, and Roderick Nash (1989), Rights of Nature: A History of} Environmental Ethics, University of Wisconsin Press.

38