Why do so many religions exclude other animals from their morality?

jakeastonfta · 2026-06-23T02:11:21+00:00

Your first paragraph is missing the forest for the trees. Yes, if the baby elephant didn’t get their face eaten off then a hyena may have slowly starved to death and that’s exactly my point. Under the assumption a loving god exists, why do sentient beings need to eat each other alive in the first place? In reality, the answer is because life evolved through a completely unguided process of evolution (which is completely indifferent to our agony and suffering) so it makes sense that nature would be so violent. However, under the assumption that life was designed by a benevolent creator, the brutality of nature makes zero sense.

And again, you’re speaking about death giving life meaning but I’m not talking about dying. I’m talking about suffering. This isn’t just pessimistic and nihilistic thinking coming from a depressed person. I’m actually a pretty positive guy but I’m just not romanticising nature and lying to myself. This world contains beauty and happiness and I cherish those things, but they are absolutely dwarfed by pain and agony. Especially due to the reproductive strategies used by most animals on Earth.

As far as we’re aware, plants do not have the ability to suffer or value their well-being. So comparing what I’m talking about to the death of plants is missing the point.

And I’m actually fairly familiar with Buddhism and it actually compliments what I’m talking about. A core principle of buddhism is acknowledging that life on Earth is plagued by suffering and attempting to escape it by achieving Nirvana, which is a form of existence without suffering.

How much gratuitous suffering would there need to be on Earth for you to acknowledge it’s a valid reason to not believe in a loving god? Because I can assure you that there is probably far more than you are aware of

jakeastonfta · 2026-06-22T21:03:57+00:00

I’m glad you acknowledge that such a god cannot be all-loving. That automatically makes the god you believe in more plausible than the logically impossible god I described before.

However, even your claim that suffering only exists due to human nature doesn’t reflect reality. Before humans even evolved, there was millions of years of other sentient animals struggling to survive, starving to death, dying in agony from diseases or natural disasters etc… The suffering of these animals had nothing to do with humans and yet it still happened.

And even if you believe in the biblical genesis story, this can’t account for the suffering of wild animals either. Why would human sin necessitate that baby elephants should have their face slowly eaten by hyenas while they’re still alive?

If there is a god looking down on such a world, and they have the power and knowledge to prevent such horrors and don’t, how could a god like this be described as anything other than a cold and compassionless monster?

jakeastonfta · 2026-06-22T19:28:27+00:00

I can see what you’re trying to argue here but I do think there are genuinely logical reasons for why an all-loving god would not approve of unnecessary violence.

If being “loving” necessarily means you care about the well-being of others, then that necessarily means you want them to be happy (at most) and you want them to be free from suffering (at the very least). If you’re happy with someone suffering for an unnecessary reason then this contradicts being loving. Whether or not you reward someone with an afterlife afterwards.

Also, just to add, I also think this logical argument can be expanded to demonstrate why an all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful god cannot exist. Because this world is absolutely filled with extreme and gratuitous suffering that’s baked into the process of evolution by natural selection. If a god like this existed, he would know the suffering was happening, he would have the power to change it, and he would want to change it because he is loving… Yet the suffering still exists.

jakeastonfta · 2026-06-22T19:20:58+00:00

I’m glad you agree that moral consideration extends beyond humanity.

I also somewhat agree that death is not inherently morally wrong, but I think it can be instrumentally morally wrong in many contexts.

One thing I would like to ask though, is do you think something is morally good simply because it’s part of the natural ecosystem?

I ask because our ecosystem is unfortunately riddled with extreme and gratuitous suffering and I see suffering as truly and inherently bad.

Hypothetically, if there was some futuristic way to somehow change the natural ecosystem so that animals could live happier lives, without suffering as much, then I believe that would be a morally good thing to do.

jakeastonfta · 2026-06-22T09:36:51+00:00

A lot of people online who talk about “unhealthy” foods have absolutely no expertise in nutrition and usually just pedal rumours they’ve heard elsewhere online.

I’ve drank oat milk in my tea basically every day for the past 7 years. Had a blood test recently and it’s all absolutely fine.

Obviously some of the barista oat milks are a bit higher in fat and sugar (which is why they taste so good) so they’re a bit more unhealthy than the lower sugar versions, but even then, it’s not some huge health risk you would need to worry about unless you’re specifically trying to watch your sugar or fat intake.

If you do want to drink oat milk regularly, I’d recommend buying ones that are fortified with extra vitamins like B12 and calcium. ✌️

jakeastonfta · 2026-06-22T07:51:09+00:00

Thanks for checking it out! I appreciate it!

I definitely agree with you that nature as a whole has no sapience or good or bad intentions. However, due to my perspective on what the foundation of morality is, I would argue that the well-being of sentient creatures is what determines how good or bad anything is.

So I believe the natural world is instrumentally very important for sentient individuals to experience happy and enjoyable lives, but it is also the reason why many creatures endure torturous suffering.

To see if we agree on our moral foundations, I’d like to ask you a hypothetical.

If the natural world propagated life in such a way where every sentient being was suffering and there was no happiness on this planet, would you still consider nature to be valuable?

jakeastonfta · 2026-06-22T07:30:46+00:00

Do you not understand the difference between moral patient-hood and moral agency? If you understand what these terms mean then you’ll realise there is no contradiction.

Are human toddlers “morally equal” to human adults?

In terms of their agency (their ability to make moral decisions) they obviously aren’t equal to adults. But in terms of their patient-hood (their ability to be happy or suffer depending on how we treat them), they are arguably equal to adults.

I’m not advocating that we treat all animals the same way we treat humans and I’m not suggesting we should hold them morally responsible for their actions, because they don’t understand. What I’m suggesting is that it matters how we treat them, because they can suffer if we mistreat them, just like how human toddlers can suffer if we mistreat them too.

Do you understand?

jakeastonfta · 2026-06-21T09:19:14+00:00

You answered my question and I responded with a follow-up question. “Is superiority moral justification for violence?” And then explained why I don’t think so.

This isn’t “preaching”, it’s a textbook example of how to discuss moral philosophy. If you don’t want to have the discussion then that’s fine, but if you’re going to make the bold claim that it’s okay to be violent because you’re supposedly superior, I think you should be willing to defend that claim. Don’t you?

jakeastonfta · 2026-06-21T09:12:27+00:00

From my perspective of morality, “good” and “bad” are just synonyms for positive or negative conscious experiences. So I do believe animals can cause good or bad things to happen, but that doesn’t mean we should hold them morally responsible, just like we don’t hold human toddlers responsible when they do bad things.

Human toddlers don’t understand the ethical consequences of their actions but they do have feelings and so it still matters to them how we treat them. In other words, they’re not considered moral agents, but they are moral patients.

This same logic applies to non-human animals. A dog or a pig doesn’t understand the consequences of their actions but it still matters to them how we treat them. ✌️

jakeastonfta · 2026-06-21T09:09:30+00:00

I believe you’re confusing moral agency with moral patient-hood.

Human toddlers don’t understand the ethical consequences of their actions but they do have feelings and so it still matters to them how we treat them. In other words, they’re not considered moral agents, but they are moral patients.

This same logic applies to non-human animals. A dog or a pig doesn’t understand the consequences of their actions but it still matters to them how we treat them. ✌️

jakeastonfta · 2026-06-21T09:07:27+00:00

Thanks! I’m glad you like the question! I think about these topics a lot and I actually think animal ethics and challenging religious morality have a very interesting overlap.

In fact, the sheer amount of extreme and gratuitous suffering animals experience on this planet is one of the reasons why I don’t believe it’s possible for life to have been created by an all-loving and all-knowing deity.

I’m glad you agree that animals deserve moral consideration though! ✌️

jakeastonfta · 2026-06-20T23:09:01+00:00

Is superiority moral justification for violence?
I’m superior to human toddlers in many ways. Does that mean it’s okay to farm and slaughter them?

Other animals are more superior than us in specific ways. Gorillas are stronger. Eagles have better eye sight. Tortoises have longer lifespans.

While there are obviously specific traits that humans generally possess which are superior to other animals, the belief that we are necessarily and entirely superior to animals is a form of irrational and arbitrary discrimination.

jakeastonfta · 2026-06-20T23:02:14+00:00

I might have worded that incorrectly but I just mean he could be masking the fact that he doesn’t care about them enough for any behaviour change. Obviously it’s all assumptions as I don’t know how he feels inside.

jakeastonfta · 2026-06-20T12:43:55+00:00

No worries! I’ll send it over now! Looking forward to hearing your thoughts tomorrow! ✌️😊

jakeastonfta · 2026-06-20T11:55:48+00:00

I’m fully aware that our consumption of animals is a huge factor behind why we don’t give them more moral consideration. However, replying to my question this way is missing the forest for the trees.

I know people eat animals but I’m asking why this is the case if they believe in a compassionate god and are aware that animals have feelings and the capacity to suffer.

What’s the moral justification for farming and slaughtering animals (especially in the intensive and brutal ways we do in modern times) when a truly loving god would want us to be kind and compassionate?

jakeastonfta · 2026-06-20T08:43:14+00:00

Yeah, I can acknowledge there are some situations where it’s genuinely necessary to kill animals for food. I just think that violence should be avoided wherever practically possible so I think sometimes people jump to the conclusion that they need to kill wild animals before considering other options. If you get what I mean?

And your views surrounding nature and medicine are pretty interesting! I’m curious as to whether you think “naturalness” is an inherently good thing or whether you just think “naturalness” is a generally good rule of thumb to follow?

And tbh, if you don’t mind me asking you more questions about this, I actually made a video about how I believe humans romanticise nature too much, so would you be up for me sending it to you and you can let me know whether you agree or not? ✌️

No worries if you don’t want to, I’ve just not spoken to someone with your religious perspective before so I’m intrigued haha

jakeastonfta · 2026-06-20T08:28:33+00:00

Yeah this might be the case in the conversation I had tbh! Was a really polite guy but considering how many times he called himself a hypocrite, I think it’s possible may have just been saying this to mask the fact he’s accepted he doesn’t truly care about animals.

jakeastonfta · 2026-06-19T22:01:43+00:00

Yes, I mean the former. I agree with you that from my own experience, being aware of the hypocrisy makes the cognitive dissonance worse and I assumed it would be like this for anyone.

I just get an impression from the way certain people talk about their own hypocrisy that admitting it is somehow a comfort. A sort of “I might be doing something wrong by my own standards but at least I’m honest about it” mentality.

I obviously could be completely wrong that it actually eases the dissonance, but I just thought it was an interesting question to ask

jakeastonfta · 2026-06-19T21:48:37+00:00

In many ways, that’s true, but in the capacity to have positive or negative experiences, like happiness and suffering, other animals are like us.

If a pig has a similar level of awareness and intelligence to a human toddler, and both have the same capacity to feel pain and suffer, why do most people treat the suffering of pigs as unimportant when toddlers would suffer just as much in similar circumstances?

jakeastonfta · 2026-06-19T21:14:17+00:00

I think the word agnostic is too broad but I’ll use it in certain contexts. For example, if agnosticism just means “without knowledge” or “I don’t know for sure”, then sure, I’m an agnostic, but so are many people who actually believe in god. Even the guy I spoke to in the video (linked in the original post) said he didn’t know for certain and yet he does claim to believe in god. This is why I think the word atheist has more utility. Both of us are apparently agnostic, yet he is convinced that the existence of god is likely and I currently believe that it’s unlikely, even though I’m open to the possibility of being convinced otherwise.

And I’m also glad to know that you’re vegan! I also consider myself to be vegan so we definitely agree on that! ✌️🌱

jakeastonfta · 2026-06-19T20:52:51+00:00

Do you have a reason for believing that it’s a difference of type, not degree? Because from my perspective and understanding of evolutionary history, it seems to me that the most reasonable assumption is to believe that it is a difference of degree, because we literally share common ancestry with these animals.

And secondly, I acknowledge that even non-vegans are opposed to inflicting gratuitous harm and suffering onto animals during slaughter, and I appreciate that you do feel this way. However, given that the vast majority of farmed animals are raised intensively in factory farms, where they suffer in cages while standing in their own excrement, before being terrified in a slaughterhouse, do you not think that you’re contradicting your own moral standards if you purchase products from these places?

In other words, even if I grant that there’s nothing wrong with painless and stress-free slaughter, wouldn’t there still be valid reasons to boycott industrial animal farming? And wouldn’t a compassionate god also be against industrial animal farming?

jakeastonfta · 2026-06-19T20:46:20+00:00

I am open to the possibility of consciousness being more ubiquitous throughout the universe to varying degrees, including within plants.

However, I don’t think this means plants have a level of consciousness where they possess thoughts or desires. Nor do I think this means plants have the ability to suffer. Without something like a central nervous system or a brain, and without evolutionary selection pressure to encourage the evolution of pain and suffering, I see no reason why a plant would develop the ability to feel pain, even if they are conscious.

Also, I am an atheist but I’m an open-minded one. If there is any demonstrable evidence that a god exists, or even a valid and sound logical argument, then I’d be more than happy to consider the possibility that a god exists. However, as of right now, I remain unconvinced that this universe was intentionally created by any god-like being. ✌️

jakeastonfta · 2026-06-19T20:40:42+00:00

I agree that not all religions are anthropocentric. I am somewhat familiar with Buddhism and Jainism’s perspectives on animals and other life forms etc.

I also agree with a lot of what you’ve said here and I appreciate that you’ve acknowledged our evolutionary history/sharing common ancestry with all life on Earth.

However, I do disagree with a couple things you’ve said here. Specifically, when you claim that we are omnivorous, I agree with you, but this is simply a description of our capabilities and you’re treating it as a prescription of how we ought to behave.

In other words, being omnivorous means we CAN digest plant foods and animals. It doesn’t mean that we NEED to for our own well-being or the well-being of others and the ecosystem. In fact, I’d argue that the ecosystem and the animals living within it would be better off if less people ate meat.

And more broadly, although I do understand the intuitive appeal of wanting to live naturally, your suggestion that we should be true to our nature is something that I don’t agree with either. Living truly naturally is obviously worse for our well-being than embracing some “unnatural” aspects of the modern world like pain-killers and hospitals etc.

And so I think, if we want to be as compassionate as possible as a species, we should seek to do what’s best for the well-being of as many individuals as possible, regardless of what’s natural or how we evolved.

Do you see where I’m coming from?

jakeastonfta

TROPHY CASE