On animal rights and having souls

Short of agreeing with me that the Scriptures cannot be taken as historical fact in their entirety (despite my example of a God supposedly killing innocent children), Alfred E. Zammit (April 5) acknowledges that hermeneutics (the study of Scripture interpretation) cannot be argued in a short letter.

However, the fact that Mr Zammit agrees that Scriptures need interpretation, adds weight to my claim, that they cannot be taken as historical fact in their entirety.

Historical statements about what happened and where, should not need any interpretation at all. They are either true or mistaken. If a claim requires interpretation, it is not historical fact, but just a means of conveying a message.

My example of Moses and Pharaoh is a case in point. If this actually happened, the claim that God supposedly killed the Egyptian children is the Scripture writer's mistaken interpretation of natural events which he attributes to God.

The deaths could have been due to a natural disease. The other explanation - that God kills children- should be dismissed offhand by anyone who either disbelieves in a personal God or believes that God is benevolent.

Mr Zammit claims that humans, unlike non-humans, possess souls. Despite Pope John Paul II having declared in a public audience in 1990 that "also the animals possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren", I admit that the question of whether humans and non-humans have souls is a matter of faith, which can neither be proved nor disproved. Simply claiming (as Mr Zammit does) that not having souls is a denial of free-will, does not prove having souls. If anything, it proves that we either have souls or, strictly speaking, little or no free will. Whether humans and non-humans have souls is a matter of faith.

However, even if we accept that non-humans have no souls, this does not imply that non-humans have no rights. On the other hand, if they have no souls (and by implication no afterlife), this makes their abuse more tragic, since they would never be compensated for any wrongdoing.

Mr Zammit's claim that "human beings have spiritual souls but (non-human) animals do not", is just something he believes.

It can neither be proved nor disproved. But the question is irrelevant to whether non-humans have rights. In fact, a case could be made that they not only do have rights, but the violation of their rights is more tragic, as I explained.

Of course, this, by itself, is no proof of non-humans having rights.

But I hope I have made it clear that neither does not having a soul prove one does not have rights. The matter should be treated in a secular, and not a religious debate. People who wish to learn more about the animal rights view may visit www.animalrightsmalta.com