This is somewhat off topic, but I wrote this for my class discussion and I feel this brings up a very interesting discussion on the nature of human morality, free will and original sin.
For those who are not familiar with this topic, this is in response to Karen Armstrong’s new book, 12 Steps towards Compassion.
According to the etymology of English, compassion comes from its Latin roots, meaning “to suffer together.” This is mentioned in Armstrong as well. Yet, in a religious terminology — Christianity or otherwise — compassion is framed as an act reserved for a sentient being, that is, humans and super-human entities such as God or Boddhisattva. The discussion of opening up the definition of compassion to include non-human species would create an enormous theological and moral challenge. First of all, does that mean all species are capable of conscious compassion, as opposed to what could simply be an environmental adaptation? If not, where would one draw line to delineate the capacity for compassion? It is often said that species with a vertebrae can feel pain, while bugs and shrimps probably would not, due to the lack of advanced neurological system. Does that mean compassion is merely a biological response, or as many religious traditions would teach and assert, that it is a matter of morality — and as such necessarily a product of a free-will choice?
I have read some of the articles that purport to prove that non-human animals are capable of “compassion” in a same way as humans would. But it is unclear as for if it is merely a reflex driven by instinct. Then again, is compassion also a human instinct? If then, I would open up another can of worms:
If moral behaviour such as compassion is deeply embedded and hard-wired in human genes, then is the concept of “sin” essentially a deviation from one’s instinct? This would create a massive challenge for who believe in original sin, but would be a great boon for the proponents of “original blessings” such as Matthew Fox. Historically, Christianity fought nature instead of embracing it, and this was augmented by the Protestant industrial ethics of conquering the nature to produce wealth. So the real question may not even be, for theologians, whether cats or rabbits or dolphins are capable of “compassion” (in whatever the capacity) but rather whether “free will” is overrated and whether “the nature” is intrinsically evil and against God’s will.
Now this is getting interesting….
