Humanbeings,ofcourse,wouldnotkillforfoodunlessthey
had first considered the justice of so doing!
Sohumanbeings maykill otheranimalsand usethem for
food;butarethereperhapsotherthingsthatwemaynotdoto
them?Isthesufferingofothercreaturesinitselfanevil?Ifso
woulditnotforthatreasonbewrongtomakethemsuffer,or
at least to make them suffer unnecessarily?
Aquinasdoesnot saythatcrueltyto“irrational animals”is
wronginitself.Hehasnoroomforwrongsofthiskindinhis
moral schema, forhe dividessinsinto those against God,
those againstoneself,andthose againstone’sneighbor.So
thelimitsofmoralityonceagainexcludenonhumans.There
is no category for sins against them.^13
Perhapsalthoughitisnotasintobecrueltononhumans,itis
charitable to be kind to them? No, Aquinas explicitly
excludesthispossibilityaswell.Charity,hesays,doesnot
extend to irrational
creaturesforthreereasons:theyare“notcompetent,properly
speaking, to possess good, this being proper to rational
creatures”;wehavenofellow-feelingwiththem;and,finally,
“charityisbasedonthefellowshipofeverlastinghappiness,
to which the irrational creature cannot attain.” It is only
possibleto lovethesecreatures,wearetold,“ifweregard
themasthegoodthingsthatwedesireforothers,”thatis,“to
God’s honor and man’s use.” In other words, we cannot
lovinglygivefoodto turkeysbecausetheyarehungry,but
only if we think of them as someone’s Christmas dinner.^14
AllthismightleadustosuspectthatAquinassimplydoesn’t
believethatanimalsotherthanhumanbeingsarecapableof