On the other hand we also hear of savages who are greatly lacking in sympathy for the brute creation. Darwin says that humanity to the lower animals is apparently unfelt by savages, except towards their pets.[38] Mr. Atkinson charges the New Caledonians with great cruelty to animals.[39] The Tasmanians appeared much to enjoy the tortures of a wounded bird or beast.[40] It is not to be expected that people whose kindly feelings towards men hardly extend beyond the borders of their own communities should be compassionate to wild animals. They may also appear wantonly cruel because they do not realise the pain which they inflict. And, like children, they may enjoy the agony of a suffering beast or bird because it excites their curiosity.
[38] Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 123.
[39] Atkinson, ‘Natives of New Caledonia,’ in Folk-lore, xiv. 248.
[40] Davies, quoted by Ling Roth, Tasmanians, p. 66.
It is obvious from what has been said above that already at the savage stage men’s conduct towards the lower animals must in some cases be a matter of moral concern. For hand in hand with the altruistic sentiment we always find the feeling of sympathetic resentment whenever there is an occasion for its outburst. Moreover, acts which are, or are believed to be, injurious to the agent, by exposing him to an animal’s revenge or otherwise, are prohibited because they are imprudent; and, as we have often noticed, such prohibitions are apt to assume a moral character. Finally, if a certain mode of conduct is considered to be productive of public harm, as is the case with any act or omission which reduces, or is supposed to reduce, the supply of food or animal clothing, it is naturally looked upon as a wrong against the community.
Similar facts have, among peoples of a higher culture, led to moral rules inculcating regard for animals—rules which have often assumed a definite shape in their laws or religious books.
According to Brahmanism tenderness towards all creatures is a duty incumbent upon the four castes. It is said that “he who injures innoxious beings from a wish to give himself pleasure, never finds happiness, neither living nor dead.”[41] If a blow is struck against animals in order to give them pain, the judge shall inflict a fine in proportion to the amount of pain caused, just as if the blow had been struck against a man.[42] The killing of various creatures, including fish and snakes, reduces the offender to a mixed caste;[43] and, according to ‘Vishnu Purana,’ fishermen go after death to the same hell as awaits prisoners, incendiaries, and treacherous friends.[44] To kill a cow is a great crime;[45] whereas he who unhesitatingly abandons life for the sake of a cow is freed even from the guilt of the murder of a Brâhmana, and so is he who saves the life of a cow.[46] Among many of the Hindus the slaughter of a cow excites more horror than the killing of a man, and is punished with great severity, even with death.[47]
[41] Laws of Manu, v. 45.
[42] Ibid. viii. 286.
[43] Ibid. xi. 69.