Man and the Natural World. Changing Attitudes in England 1500–1800

Influence of botanists and zoologists. The rise of natural history helped to undermine this anthropocentric view. Anthropocentric classifications such as edible-inedible, useful-useless animals were gradually being replaced by more objective classifications based on neutral observational criteria. That was real progress because old classifications were highly arbitrary and had harmful effects on wild animals. Gamekeepers slaughtered innocent jays and woodpeckers. Gardeners destroyed worms. The wren and the squirrel were ritually hunted at Christmas. On the other hand, in some parts of England the robin and swallow were more or less sacred and treated with respect. The naturalists of the 17th century were beginning to study plants and animals for their own sake, independent of their utility or meaning for man.

Pets narrowing the gap. In the 16th and 17th centuries pets had established themselves in the English households for company, especially in towns. Not only dogs and cats, but also pet monkeys, tortoises, otters, rabbits, squirrels and songbirds such ascanaries,^[1] nightingales, goldfinches, larks, linnets, parrots, magpies and jackdaws. In the 18th century pets were given human names, and were never eaten. Observation of pets provided support for the view that pets could be intelligent, sensitive, responsive and almost every other human quality. All this helped to break down the absolute gap between animals and humans.

Cruelty to animals. Cruelty to animals (bull-baiting, cockfighting, mistreatment of donkeys, horses) was almost universal in England before 1700. However, attitudes to cruelty were changing. Already theologian John Calvin, still firmly within the anthropocentric tradition, remembered that animals, like men, were part of God's creation, and were created for Man's sake, but we should handle them gently. From the 1740s onwards, there was a growing stream of writings by philosophers, scientists, and poets attacking cruelty, culminating in the foundation of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) in 1824. Man was fully entitled to domesticate animals and to kill them for food and clothing, but to cause unnecessary suffering was morally wrong. This was a significant change. However, the question remained: Which animals? What is 'unnecessary' suffering? Quakers forbid hunting for sport altogether. Philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote in 1789: the question is not 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?' but 'Can they suffer?'.