Animal Rights

ryan

New member
I've heard various different claims that there is an animal rights message underlying in many C.S. Lewis books. Does anyone know of any particular characters or aspects of the plot that would have some message about this to it? Thanks!
 
O.O whoa. wow. wOw. no i don't think that at all. i mean, no. no. haha. no i don't think so. haha. sorry for laughing. it's not at you, i promise.
 
No? What about just general animal suffering? I know it is referenced in some of his books with the concept of animals going to heaven and whatnot. He was also a strong advocate of anti-vivisection (opposing animal testing). Just curious whether that ever leaked into his stories at all.
 
sorry, ryan, i wasn't trying to be mean. i just kinda find it funny that people would give animals rights. anyway, the Bible says that we are to rule over the animals, not them be equal with us. no, that doesn't mean that we should masecre them or anything, but they are there for us to rule over and well eat. we are not here for them. but.... i just think that it is funyn just in general that someone would give human rights to animals. again, i didn't and don't mean to be mean or rude.
 
well i suppose with anything you can try to find something that you agree with in a story like that. the beavers and all were mistreated under the white witch, so i can see how people would put in that theme in there somehow. Though do i think he meant that, i don't. Its just my opinion though, i really don't think that was his intention at all, even if he did care about animals that way, though it could have been an after thought that was underlying possibly. Who knows.

tg
 
ryan, i wouldn't really think the narnia books had anything about animal rights in them. A C.S.Lewis book that showed more of a message to treat animals just and kind was Perelandra (The devil disects life frogs in that book, which really made me hate that character, while the first people of Perelandra, who haven't had a sinfall yet, live in a very friendly relationship with all animals). So you might want to check on that. I don't think, though that Lewis really intended to convey that kind of message with the Chronicles of Narnia. Maybe as an underlying tone, but not blatantly in your face.
 
As has been mentioned already there isn't an obvious animal rights theme in the books, animal welfare yes, but that's caught up in the general theme of behaving in a reasonable manner to all living things etc which runs through the CoN anyway
 
While I'm not surprised that animal rights are not prevalent in the CoN, just for future reference, animal rights does not mean that they get the same rights as humans. Animal rights means that because they have the same capacity to suffer (sometimes more than humans, based on their physiology), we should limit the suffering as much as possible. Yes, this includes not accepting factory farming as an acceptable method of termination because of the extreme amounts of pain and suffering that are included wih it, but we're not talking about giving them drivers licenses or anything.
 
I know this is kind of off topic, but Ryan since you seem to know a bit about animal rights...
Someone told me that activists were trying to make it illegal to shear sheep because it creates too much trauma for the animals. Is this true?
 
in his book "The Problem of Pain",Lewis has a whole chapter on animal pain.He also was very very attached to his childhood dog and loved animals his entire life.I think that he was very interested in making sure people were kind to animals.There are many refrences to animal cruelty in almost all of his fiction books and he talks about it also in come of his non -fiction books as well.But his agenda in his books was not to give animals a better life, but to point people their creator so that they may have the best life possible. And while people are serving their creator they should also have proper respect for all creation.
 
Last edited:
indeed. well said, therearenoaccidents. very true that animal cruelty is wrong. and that some laws should be there to protect animals from being treated cruely. but making it so that people can't even go fishing? i think that that is going way too far. but that's a little..... way actually, off topic. so never mind about that. :) ... never mind.
 
Animals Rights

First of all Dead Rain, whether you ment it or not, you were being rude AND ignorant.

Ryan, I think that you could make a very strong argument that there is an animals rights theme in the Chronicles of Narnia. I don't have the books with me, so I'll try and reacall some themes from memory. When Alsan is establishing I believe it might be Frank as King, doesn't he charge him to rule fairly over all the creatures, regardless? I'll get the exact quote. Reepicheep makes the comment that because of small stature, mice must be prideful otherwise others might treat them harshly (I think he give a meaningful glance to someone). Lewis reinforced the theme throughout his book that not matter how silly or stupid and animal might appear, it was the duty and responsibility of his chosen rulers to treat those creatures with respect and to rule kindly and wisely over them. If I had the books with me, I'm certain that I could reference many passages to reinforce my point.

A more correct interpretation of the Bible would suggest that we have a much larger responsibility to animals that you might think. Being left in charge implies that you have a resonsibility to act with your charges well-being in mind, not that you can do anything you like. Who do you hold to a higher standard, a kindergarden teacher or her/his classroom full of children? Why? Because the teacher is supposed to be responsible, she is supposed to be in charge, and the children don't know enough to look after themselves. You certainly wouldn't suggest that because you put a teacher in charge of a classroom that that implied that the children were the teacher's to do with as the pleased!!!!

Dead Rain, to address you quickly....no one is arguing human rights for animals. No one says that animals should be allowed to vote, or own property. The animal rights movement says that animals have the right to not be tortured, be made to suffer, etc. I find it repugnent that you would laugh at someone who held these kind of compassionate beliefs. Many people find Christan beliefs to be laughable. How would you feel is someone outright laughed at your Christian beliefs and then said they didn't mean to be rude, but they just found it perposterous to think that way.

Sheep. Many people are opposed to the wool industry due to a practice called mulesing. Sheep grow thick coats, all over their bodies, even around their private parts. When the sheep urinate or defecate, it can get stuck in the wool around these areas and make a mess. To resolve this, sheep ranchers flip the sheep upside down, and cut large chunks of flesh out of the animals backsides. When the wound heals there is scar tissue around the animals gentials and anus that doesn't grow any wool. All this, as well as castration of male sheep and tail docking takes place without painkillers or any sort of numbing agent. Imagine having someone take a knife and cut bit chunks of flesh from your behind and private areas. Ouch!

If anyone would like to debate further about referenced to the book that do or don't support a theme of animals rights...I would be game for further discussion!
 
I am dreadfully and most honestly completely sorry that I sounded rude and ignorant. That was not my meaning at all whatsoever. Will you all please forgive me?

"ruling fairly" is different from "animal rights." "animal rights" is different from protecting animals from "animal cruelty." protecting animals from "animal cruety" is basically the same thing as "ruling fairly". does that make more sense? and it is more respectful? kuz i'm really really really not trying to be mean or anything. truely,
 
Hi Dead Rain. I appreciate that you didn't intend to be rude, and I don't want you to feel that I was criticizing you to harshly. No hard feelings! :)

This is really taking it to the next level, but I think that there is a fundamental diffence between a "freedom to" and a freedom from." Rights imply a "freedom to" - whereas "freedom from" is a lesser thing. I would argue for animal rights, that they should have "freedom to" certain things. Adequate and suffcient food, water, companionship, freedom of movement, and freedom to engage in natural behaviors. A freedom from argument states that an animal should be free from certain thing, pain, fear suffering, cruelty." I don't think that freedom from is a noble enough goal. To say that it is sufficent to argue that animals should be free from cruelty isn't a high enough standard. The should have rights, or a freedom to certain things. Once again, I'm not arguing that animals should have human rights (vote, own property etc.) Only animal rights, the right to eat, drink, move, socialize, and engage in natural behaviors. Natural behaviors might be rooting in the dirt for pigs, taking a dust bath for chincillas etc.)

I believe that animals do have a "right" to these things. No just that they should be free from suffering and pain.

I think Lewis made these themes very apparent in his books. He repeately refers to the right of Narnian animals to live free lives. He goes to great lengths to portray some animals as silly or stupid (the bulgy bear who sucks his paws) and yet still entitled to respect and RIGHTS (the bulgy bear was entiled to the ancient right to be marshal of the lists -prince caspian).

I would argue that there is an extremely strong theme throughout the books that (1)animals have rights, (2)those rights apply no matter how stupid or silly or small the animal may be, and (3)those in a position of authority are held to a much higher standard in preserving the rights of the "lesser" creatures.

I'm interested to know what you think! :)
 
well if you do put it that way, then a little of both things would be required. but... well yeah. i think that like, not letting someone... say.... go fishing even if they are going to put the fish back is a little far for the "freedom from" side. but not letting someone say.... shoot a wolf that is eating all their chickens is a little far on the "freedom to" side. in a way, both things could go both ways. but it the wolf isn't or can't be caught, it's gonna have to be shot one way or another. and the fish are just fish. they can't think. now if you are just cutting the fish's guts out for no reason at all, then i can see giving the fish "freedom from," but still, cutting a fish's guts out for no reason: that's just a little weird. :)

i think that Lewis may have intended for his readers(which were generally children) to not be cruel to animals, like riping their heads off or something. but i don't think that like, he was trying to say that we should never bother animals and that we should let them kill out chicken and what not. (i'm talking in a funny voice right now. really. it's really funny. you should hear it). but anyway, yeah. i think i guess.... i forget what i was saying. so never mind.. i'm a schetzo. :p
 
One point that no one has mentioned here is that C.S. Lewis makes it quite clear that his talking animals in the CoN are not to be equated with our "dumb" animals.
I believe that we are to be good stewards of the earth and treat animals justly, allowing them to have as many freedoms as possible (without allowing that freedom to infringe on human safety or livelihood). And, I believe that Lewis does hint at that in all of his books, as therearenoaccidents said.
However, we must be thoroughly aware of the distinction he draws between the "talking" beasts and the "dumb" ones. Notice that he allows his characters to hunt and eat meat in many of the books, but when Jill, Eustace, and Puddleglum are served a talking stag at the giants' castle, they are sickened because it is a form of cannibalism to them.
Therefore, when we study his treatment of all the talking beasts equally in Prince Caspian, I would consider it almost more of a statement against racism and prejudice than cruelty to animals.
 
I think we have to be really careful when we say certain things really are to be considered under the term of animal cruelty. For example, sheep shearing, if you don't shear the sheep wouldn't they be really uncomfortable in the summer because of their heavy coats? I would tend to think so. While I would never, ever condone actions of true animal cruelty i think we need to be careful not to just randomly said "oh that's animal cruelty" With regards to Lewis intending to have a message against animal cruelty/for animal rights in his books, i think it's like Tolkien said once, people read books and because of certain circumstances in their lives or ideas they hold they read meaning into things that aren't intended to have that meaning. I don't know if that makes sense, Tolkien was a lot more eloquent than me...
 
You're right, Nienna. We have to be cautious when trying to discern the difference between care and abuse of animals. Your reference to Tolkien is also correct. He was using it as a reason against writing allegory. He wanted readers to be able to read their own experiences in his work rather than being manipulated by the author to read his experiences.
I'm not sure if C.S. Lewis would have agreed with him on this or not, considering that they disagreed on whether or not allegory was a legitimate form of fantasy literature (Tolkien against allegory, Lewis for). Lewis certainly did put some direct allegories in his Narnia books, but I don't see animal rights being one of them.
 
Back
Top