Christian Responses to Animal Ethics

Why animals matter in Christian ethics

Christian animal ethics concerns how humans ought to treat other animals. Christians believe that animals belong to God’s creation, rather than existing only as resources for people. Genesis 1:31 describes everything God had made as ‘very good’. This gives Christians a reason to value animals and take their treatment seriously.

Other biblical teachings connect that belief with practical care. Proverbs 12:10 says, ‘The righteous care for the needs of their animals.’ Exodus 20:10 includes animals in the Sabbath rest, while Jesus teaches that even sparrows are not forgotten by God in Luke 12:6. These teachings support the view that compassion should extend beyond human beings.

However, valuing animals does not settle every question about using them. Christians disagree about whether responsible use is acceptable or whether some uses should be rejected altogether.

Dominion, stewardship and the limits of human power

Dominion means human authority over creation. Genesis 1:28 gives humans authority to ‘rule over’ animals. Some Christians understand this as permitting the use of animals for human benefit, including food and work. They may argue that meeting important human needs is legitimate, provided animals are treated humanely.

Stewardship means a responsibility to care for what belongs to God. From this perspective, authority over animals brings duties towards them: humans should protect their wellbeing rather than exploit them. Dominion and stewardship need not be opposites. A Christian may believe that humans have authority to use animals but must exercise that authority with care.

There is also an important distinction between animal welfare and animal rights. Welfare concerns animals’ wellbeing and protection from unnecessary suffering. Someone might support welfare while accepting humane farming. A rights-based position holds that animals have moral entitlements which restrict what humans may do to them, even when using them would benefit people.

Christians who place strong emphasis on animals’ value as God’s creatures may therefore oppose practices that other Christians accept under strict welfare conditions. St Francis of Assisi is associated with compassion for all creatures, while Christian theologian David Clough argues that animals should be able to thrive rather than suffer. These approaches can influence Christians to support animal welfare organisations, campaign against cruelty or change their own behaviour.

Is it acceptable to eat animals?

Many Christians accept eating meat. Genesis 9:3 permits humans to eat animals, so they argue that meat-eating is not inherently wrong. Nevertheless, permission to eat animals does not remove the responsibility to care for them. A Christian who eats meat may still oppose cruel farming practices and support laws protecting animals.

Other Christians choose vegetarian or vegan diets. They emphasise compassion and argue that avoiding animal products can reduce their involvement in animal suffering. Some interpret the plants given to humans for food in Genesis 1:29 as evidence of God’s original intention for a plant-based diet. Seventh-day Adventists encourage vegetarianism, although individual choices vary.

Christian Vegetarians & Vegans UK promotes food choices shaped by Christian faith, compassion and stewardship. It seeks to educate Christians about plant-based diets and avoiding animal suffering. Its appeal to Genesis 1:30, which gives green plants as food to animals, sits within the wider creation account.

The disagreement is therefore not simply between people who care about animals and people who do not. One Christian may believe that humane meat production respects both biblical permission and stewardship; another may judge that avoiding the killing and exploitation of animals better expresses care for creation.

Animal experimentation: human health and animal suffering

Animal experimentation uses animals in scientific research, including research into diseases and treatments. Many Christians accept some medical research because it can relieve human suffering. Animal research has contributed to the development of vaccines, penicillin and treatments for cancer and Parkinson’s disease. Christians may regard protecting human life and health as a strong reason for allowing it.

This support is often conditional. Animals should be treated humanely, unnecessary or extreme pain should be avoided, and non-animal alternatives such as computer modelling should be used where possible. The UK’s Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 regulates animal research and requires attention to alternatives.

Other Christians argue that causing suffering to God’s creatures conflicts with stewardship and compassion. A rights-based objection goes further: if animals have a right not to be used in harmful experiments, a possible human benefit does not automatically justify violating that right.

An important distinction is between accepting research when it is genuinely necessary and approving every experiment. The purpose, likely benefit, degree of suffering and availability of alternatives can all affect a Christian’s judgement.

Applying utilitarianism

Utilitarianism judges actions by their consequences: the aim is to produce the greatest overall happiness or wellbeing and minimise suffering. It is often expressed as seeking ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. This is not simply a vote in which the majority’s wishes win: the seriousness and extent of benefits and harms matter.

Jeremy Bentham, a founder of utilitarianism, argued that animals’ suffering must count. His key question was not whether animals can reason or talk, but ‘Can they suffer?’ Animals that can experience pain and pleasure are sentient. Their inability to speak does not make their pain morally irrelevant.

The non-religious philosopher Peter Singer similarly argues against giving human interests greater weight merely because they are human. He challenges speciesism: unjustifiably favouring the interests of one species over another. Taking animal suffering seriously does not mean that humans and animals must always receive identical treatment; it means their interests cannot simply be ignored.

Applied to experimentation, utilitarian reasoning can support or oppose research under different conditions. Suppose an experiment could prevent a serious disease. A utilitarian would weigh the likely reduction in human suffering against the animals’ pain and other harms. Successful medical treatment could benefit many people over a long period, providing a strong argument in favour. However, an uncertain or minor benefit might not outweigh severe animal suffering. An equally effective non-animal method would strengthen the case against using animals.

The purpose of research therefore matters. Preventing a life-threatening illness offers a stronger justification than gaining a minor cosmetic benefit. There is also a difficulty: future benefits are uncertain, and comparing human and animal suffering accurately is hard. A promised benefit should not automatically be treated as an achieved one.

For food, a utilitarian considers benefits such as nutrition and enjoyment alongside suffering in breeding, farming and slaughter. Where people can obtain adequate nutrition without animal products, avoiding serious animal suffering may matter more than the pleasure of eating meat. Singer strongly criticises factory farming on these grounds. Nevertheless, utilitarianism does not make every instance of meat-eating automatically wrong: the judgement depends on the consequences and available alternatives.

Christians can use this reasoning alongside their faith. A Christian may combine stewardship with a judgement that essential medical research produces more benefit than harm. Another may combine compassion with a utilitarian argument for a plant-based diet. However, a Christian who believes that certain treatment of animals is always wrong may reject a calculation that permits it for the sake of a greater overall benefit.

Reaching a justified judgement

Evaluation involves deciding which reasons carry most weight. For experimentation, the strongest argument in favour is the possibility of relieving serious human suffering. The strongest objections concern animal suffering, animals’ moral status and whether less harmful alternatives are available. A defensible conclusion might permit essential medical research only under strict conditions, while rejecting avoidable harm. This answers the objection about suffering by explaining why necessity, likely benefit and safeguards matter, rather than assuming any human benefit is enough.

For food, biblical permission supports meat-eating, but teachings about creation and compassion challenge Christians to consider how animals are treated and whether their use is necessary. A conclusion favouring vegetarianism could argue that avoiding preventable harm best fulfils stewardship: permission to eat meat does not make it a duty. A conclusion accepting meat-eating could argue that humane treatment respects stewardship without treating biblical permission as meaningless. In either case, the judgement needs to answer the opposing argument, not merely state a preference.