Laudato Si: Manifesto of Moral Animism
Laudato Si, an encyclical by Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis), formulates the doctrine of moral duty of Man with respect to nature, based on the premise that the moral status of nature is on the same continuum as the moral status of humanity. I argue that the idea of moral equivalence or mutuality between Man and the non-human world is ontologically inconsistent and therefore necessarily false. Moreover, the associated denial of the Biblical command to subdue and rule over the Earth (Genesis 1:26-28) in favour of stewardship and obedience to the laws of nature contradicts the premise of Man being uniquely created in the image of God, supremely valuable (Matthew 6:26), and implicitly negates the concept of human Salvation. I conclude that protection or care for the natural world is not a self-standing moral imperative, but only an indirect moral responsibility to other humans.
The belief that the moral status of nature is independent of Man, that each species is intrinsically valuable, is essentially an animistic, Pagan commitment. Crucially, the “relationship of mutual responsibility between human beings and nature” implies that if Man is entitled to kill and consume other life-forms, then Man may also be killed and consumed, or starved, or culled , our lifespan limited, all in the interest of balancing the two conflicting moral interests. Bergoglio indeed invites us to replace consumption with sacrifice, “moving gradually away from what I want to what God’s world needs.” Laudato Si, under the unmbrella of universal fraternity of existence, formulates an implicit justification for human sacrifice to nature, even for genocide. I do not allege that this aberrant effect was intentional, but the underlying logic is nevertheless defective.
I have argued elsewhere that Man is not ‘one with nature’ or a ‘part of nature’, not even ‘above nature’, but its opposite: transcendence of nature. Only homo Sapiens, the animal life-form, is a part of nature, but Human (Anthropos, ‘one-who-is-alike’) is the rational consciousness that continuously struggles to conquer its animal vessel. Animality cannot act self-reflectively, morally or intentionally; it merely ‘happens’. Consciousness, on the other hand, requires meaning, a transcendental ideal (God) to guide its intentions beyond the unconscious cycles of nature, in order to act morally, which in turn grounds the moral status of rational agency. To be human is to break out of the circle of nature, to realise the metaphysical Self in the socially-reflexive relation with other rational individuals and thus become conscious of transcending one's own amoral animality. Any attempt to reduce humans to an intrinsically valuable ‘part of nature’, or to even pre-eminent members of ‘one extended family with all life’, displaces the socially-reflexive symmetry of moral consciousness and thereby corrupts our likeness-to-kind, our image - the transcendental ideal that guides and motivates rational action.
Cruelty to animals is wrong not because it is done ’to animals’ but because it ‘is cruelty’, and cruelty is inhuman; it simultaneously socialises and degrades the social relation, and in turn degrades rational consciousness, which is socially-reflexive in its constitution. Similarly, we perceive natural beauty not because nature is intrinsically beautiful, but because of our conscious capacity to bestow worth on being. Our responsibility for the environment indeed exists, but it can be only indirect, grounded in our personal responsibility for the consequences of our actions with respect ot other human beings, because we maintain our humanity only by respecting the rational agency of others; it cannot be rationally based on the moral status of nature itself. All human values have only one possible source: the uniquely human, socially-grounded capacity to bestow worth on our aims by rationally choosing them. This capacity is, in turn, oriented towards the ideal personhood we all implicitly affirm in every rational action. On this account, animism is irredeemably irrational, self-defeating; it implicitly negates the conditions of rational consciousness.