INNOCENCE EMPATHY AND SMALL GODS

The hunter is often very angrily assailed with allegations of gross cruelty and profound absence of empathy for the “innocent animals" he deprives of life.

The prima facie case for animal innocence appears to lay in the absence of the mens rea (in law, the ‘guilty mind’) necessary to establish criminal intent or knowledge that an act – murdering a fellow innocent for instance – is wrong. 

Thus the criminal legitimacy of the actus reus (guilty act) e.g. pursuing and ripping the throat out of an unarmed victim a fraction of one’s size and strength and then devouring it, is mitigated by the assailant’s inability to grasp the nature and consequences of his/her actions. 

In short, animals are not ‘innocent’ because they’d never dream of committing acts that may be considered heinous by human standards, but rather because they lack the mental competency required to establish the malice aforethought necessary to hold them accountable for their actions.

They are deemed unaccountable and thus ‘innocent’ by virtue of diminished capacity – the "insanity plea". 

Humans, on the other hand, are seldom deemed unaccountable, even though our reasons for pursuing and killing a deer may be identical to those that drive the lioness to pursue and kill the wildebeest i.e. for food or to provide for a growing family.

The crux of the apparent double standard appears to lie in the perception that the human hunter enjoys the hunt and takes some pride in a successful outcome, while the lioness, we are assured, does not. Though I would draw the jury's attention to the fact that the prosecution has thus far proven incapable of producing expert leonine testimony to this effect. 

In a world in which so many people are committed to imbuing creatures with all manner of human emotional attributes, it seems oddly self-serving that we cherry-pick those behaviours and ‘emotions’ we seek to anthropomorphise. 

We’re assured the lioness feels ‘love’ for her cubs just as human mothers feel love for their children, but they apparently derive no sense of pride, joy or fulfilment from providing for their children responsibly as human mothers do.

Elephants, in particular, are cited as glowing examples of maternal commitment. Should an elephant calf meet with an untimely end, we know its mother may prove reluctant to leave her offspring. She may even encourage it to respond and stand, with the repeated gentle nudging of her trunk. 

This, we are assured, is evidence of 'love' and even 'grief'. 

And well it might be, but surely when comparing human ‘ethics’ and ‘empathy’ to non-human species it is irrational to claim an elephant is superior based on its responses to its own offspring?

Surely for the example to have intellectual credence we should assess the elephant’s empathy for another species as we do when we judge the human hunter lacking for not empathising with his quarry?

There seems scant evidence to suggest that elephants will step over egg-filled nests on the ground rather than crush them to oblivion, or that they’re of a mind to walk around anything non-elephantine they might just as easily walk on, or indeed, through, should it fail to yield the path.

And of course there’s an abundance of documented evidence portraying the elephants’ response to humans who encroach on their comfort zones, or object to the destruction of crops. 

Animals may, on the whole, be 'nice' to others of their kind, but so, on the whole, are humans. 

I often hear it said, “Animals are much nicer than humans” and I can’t help but wonder upon what evidence this claim is based.  It seems to me a great many people associate utter indifference with niceness...which doubtless explains the voting habits of many.

I have seen humans help a single infirm or disabled member of their herd across the street, but in the animal kingdom such infirmity is ignored and even relied upon to divert a predator’s attention while the rest of the community makes a quick getaway. And when the danger is past, life resumes with no apparent acknowledgement of the disemboweled  community members' sacrifice for the greater good.

And thank the gods of your choice for that, I say! For few things would impact so negatively on the unspoiled splendor of the African savanna as millions of bereaved Elan erecting concrete monuments, festooned with brightly coloured plastic geraniums to commemorate each fallen comrade.   

It is undeniable that some humans are capable of heinous acts of self-serving violence and intentional cruelty upon other species, but other species are likewise capable of inflicting great pain and injury upon what they might deem subordinate species (or food) and have done for millennia, with absolutely no signs of remorse. 

Yet they remain ‘innocent’, simply because they lack the intellectual wherewithal to be found guilty of murderous intent.

The fact is, perceptions of animal innocence are born of the same dark place in the human mind that gives rise to so many of humanity’s ills – the ego. 

“Humans have evolved, but you have not”, the hunter is told. “You have no empathy for other creatures” the hunters’ accusers claim, in the flawed belief that their unique capacity for empathy is the ultimate evidence of humanity’s superiority over all creation. 

This is the deific view of humanity’s place on earth. We have ‘evolved’ to a superior state of enlightenment, which removes us from the role of participants in nature’s eternal struggle, elevating us instead to the awesome responsibility of stewards and masters over all we survey. 

There is also a much darker, seldom acknowledged side to the deific view of humanity’s stewardship role on earth – a profound undercurrent of white supremacist bigotry. 

European hunters are expected to abandon their carnivorous ways, adopting instead a diet of that modern day Ambrosia – soy – which facilitates enlightenment about humanity’s true nature and responsibility.

Black folks living in remote third-world locations are not expected to strive for, much less achieve enlightenment, because of course the poor things don’t know any better. 

They are, in fact, as ‘innocents’, incapable of understanding the error of their under-evolved ways and the ramifications of their profound lack of empathy towards other creatures inhabiting a planet presided over by white folks whose vastly superior enlightenment and wisdom must be acknowledged and obeyed without question.

Alas, it seems there will always be evolutionary laggards; men and women who, like me, seek closeness to nature by engaging in the eternal struggle directly, as humble participants, content to leave the deification of the human species to more egocentric aspirants. 

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now...   


Follow the blog on Twitter @Hunters_Stand

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/innocence-empathy-and-small-gods.html

For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.

If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com This service will not include notification of new comments. All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.