Comprehension
The modern animal rights movement, which originated in the 1970s, may be understood as a reaction to dominant emphases within science and religion (principally, though not exclusively, Christianity). When the Jesuit Joseph Rickaby wrote in 1888 that "Brute beasts, not having understanding and therefore not being persons, cannot have any rights" and that we have "no duties of charity or duties of any kind to the lower animals as neither to stocks and stones", he was only articulating, albeit in an extreme form, the moral insensitivity that has characterized the Western view of animals.
That insensitivity is the result of an amalgam of influences. The first, and for many years the most dominant, was the "other worldly" or "world denying" tendency in Christianity, which has, at its worst, denigrated the value of earthly things in comparison with things spiritual. Traditional Catholicism has divided the world into those beings that possess reason and therefore immortal souls, and those that do not. Christian spirituality has not consciously been at home with the world of non-human creatures-either animal or vegetable. Classic accounts of eternal life as found in Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, or John Calvin make little or no reference to the world of animals. Animals, it seems, are merely transient or peripheral beings in an otherwise wholly human-centric economy of salvation.
The second idea-common to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam-is that animals, along with vegetables and minerals, exist instrumentally in relation to human beings; they are made for human beings, even belong to human beings, as resources in creation. This idea predates Christianity and is found notably in Aristotle, who argues that "since nature makes nothing to no purpose, it must be that nature has made them for the sake of man". This idea, largely unsupported by scripture, was nevertheless taken over by Aquinas, who conceived of creation as a rational hierarchy in which the intellectually inferior existed for the sake of the intellectually superior.
Such instrumentalism, which features rationality as the key factor dividing human beings from "brute beasts," has in turn buttressed the third influence, namely the notion of human superiority in creation. Human superiority need not, by itself, have led to the neglect of animal life, but when combined with the biblical ideas of being made "in the image of God" and God's preferential choice to become incarnate in human form, some sense of moral as well as theological ascendancy was indicated. As a result, Christianity, and to a lesser extent Judaism, have been characterized historically by an overwhelming concern for humanity in creation rather than an egalitarian concern for all forms of God-given life. That humans are more important than animals, and that they self-evidently merit moral solicitude in a way that animals cannot, has become religious doctrine. Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church maintains that "it is ….. unworthy to spend money on them [animals] that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery".
These influences have in turn enabled and justified the scientific exploration of the natural world and specifically the subjection of animals to experimentation. Francis Bacon pursued his scientific investigations in the belief that humanity should "recover that right over nature which belongs to it by divine bequest". René Descartes famously likened the movements of a swallow to the workings of a clock, and maintained that "There is no prejudice to which we are more accustomed from our earliest years than the belief that dumb animals think”.
That insensitivity is the result of an amalgam of influences. The first, and for many years the most dominant, was the "other worldly" or "world denying" tendency in Christianity, which has, at its worst, denigrated the value of earthly things in comparison with things spiritual. Traditional Catholicism has divided the world into those beings that possess reason and therefore immortal souls, and those that do not. Christian spirituality has not consciously been at home with the world of non-human creatures-either animal or vegetable. Classic accounts of eternal life as found in Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, or John Calvin make little or no reference to the world of animals. Animals, it seems, are merely transient or peripheral beings in an otherwise wholly human-centric economy of salvation.
The second idea-common to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam-is that animals, along with vegetables and minerals, exist instrumentally in relation to human beings; they are made for human beings, even belong to human beings, as resources in creation. This idea predates Christianity and is found notably in Aristotle, who argues that "since nature makes nothing to no purpose, it must be that nature has made them for the sake of man". This idea, largely unsupported by scripture, was nevertheless taken over by Aquinas, who conceived of creation as a rational hierarchy in which the intellectually inferior existed for the sake of the intellectually superior.
Such instrumentalism, which features rationality as the key factor dividing human beings from "brute beasts," has in turn buttressed the third influence, namely the notion of human superiority in creation. Human superiority need not, by itself, have led to the neglect of animal life, but when combined with the biblical ideas of being made "in the image of God" and God's preferential choice to become incarnate in human form, some sense of moral as well as theological ascendancy was indicated. As a result, Christianity, and to a lesser extent Judaism, have been characterized historically by an overwhelming concern for humanity in creation rather than an egalitarian concern for all forms of God-given life. That humans are more important than animals, and that they self-evidently merit moral solicitude in a way that animals cannot, has become religious doctrine. Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church maintains that "it is ….. unworthy to spend money on them [animals] that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery".
These influences have in turn enabled and justified the scientific exploration of the natural world and specifically the subjection of animals to experimentation. Francis Bacon pursued his scientific investigations in the belief that humanity should "recover that right over nature which belongs to it by divine bequest". René Descartes famously likened the movements of a swallow to the workings of a clock, and maintained that "There is no prejudice to which we are more accustomed from our earliest years than the belief that dumb animals think”.
Question: 1
Jesuit Joseph rickaby’s articulation on animals may be termed as:
Jesuit Joseph rickaby’s articulation on animals may be termed as:
Updated On: Jul 14, 2026
- Eco-centric view of animals
- Anthropocentric view of animals
- Ethnocentric view of animals
- Androcentric view of animals
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (B): Anthropocentric view of animals.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
This question asks us to categorise the worldview behind Rickaby's 1888 statement that "brute beasts... cannot have any rights" and that we owe animals no duties "as neither to stocks and stones." We need to match this view against the definition of each "-centric" term.
- Eco-centric: An eco-centric view places ecosystems and nature as a whole, including non-human life, at the centre of moral concern, treating humans as just one part of a larger natural system. Rickaby's statement does the opposite, it denies animals any moral standing at all, so this label does not fit.
- Anthropocentric: An anthropocentric view places humans (from the Greek "anthropos," meaning human) at the centre of moral and philosophical consideration, treating non-human beings as having value only in relation to humans, or none at all. Rickaby's claim that beasts, lacking "understanding" and therefore not being "persons," can have no rights, and that we owe them no duties "of any kind," is a textbook expression of putting humans at the centre and excluding animals from moral concern entirely.
- Ethnocentric: An ethnocentric view judges other cultures or groups by the standards of one's own culture or ethnicity, a concept about human groups judging other human groups. Rickaby's statement is about animals versus humans, not about one human culture versus another, so this term does not apply.
- Androcentric: An androcentric view centres specifically on men (as opposed to women) as the norm or standard. Rickaby's statement makes no distinction between men and women; it is about humans as a species versus animals, so this term is also a mismatch.
Rickaby's denial of any rights or duties to animals, on the grounds that only "persons" (humans) merit moral consideration, is precisely what it means for a view to be centred on humans above all else.
Therefore, the correct answer is Anthropocentric view of animals.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
According to the author, how did Christianity contribute to insensitivity of the West towards animals?
According to the author, how did Christianity contribute to insensitivity of the West towards animals?
Updated On: Jul 14, 2026
- It denigrated the value of earthly things in comparison with spiritual things.
- It divided the world into beings with and without reason.
- It propagated as if animals are transient or peripheral in human centric economy of salvation.
- All the above.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (D): All the above.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
This question asks how Christianity specifically is said to have contributed to the West's insensitivity toward animals. Since the last option combines the first three, we should check whether the passage actually attributes all three to Christianity or whether some belong elsewhere.
- Option A (Denigrated earthly things compared to spiritual things): The passage explicitly names the "other-worldly" or "world-denying" tendency in Christianity as valuing spiritual matters over earthly ones "at its worst," which is stated as the first and historically most dominant influence.
- Option B (Divided the world into beings with and without reason): The passage describes traditional Catholicism as dividing the world into beings that possess reason (and therefore immortal souls) and those that do not, directly tying this division to Christian doctrine.
- Option C (Propagated animals as transient/peripheral in a human-centric economy of salvation): The passage states that classic Christian accounts of eternal life (Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin) make little or no reference to animals, treating them as merely "transient or peripheral beings in an otherwise wholly human-centric economy of salvation," which is explicitly attributed to Christian theology.
- Option D (All the above): Since the passage presents all three ideas, the earthly/spiritual divide, the reason-based division of beings, and the human-centric view of salvation, as connected parts of the SAME Christian "other-worldly" tendency described in its second paragraph, they are not separate or competing explanations but three faces of one influence.
Each of the three statements is drawn from the same discussion of Christianity's "other-worldly" character in the passage, so no single one covers the full explanation on its own.
Therefore, the correct answer is All the above.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
Which of the following is closest to the meaning of the word ‘instrumentalism’ as used in the passage?
Which of the following is closest to the meaning of the word ‘instrumentalism’ as used in the passage?
Updated On: Jul 14, 2026
- Pragmatism
- Idealism
- Egalitarianism
- None of the above
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (A): Pragmatism.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
This is a vocabulary-in-context question about the word "instrumentalism" as used in the passage, where it describes the idea that animals, plants, and minerals "exist instrumentally in relation to human beings... as resources in creation," valued only for their use or function rather than for their own sake.
- Option A (Pragmatism): Pragmatism, broadly, judges things by their practical usefulness or function rather than by intrinsic or abstract value. "Instrumentalism," which treats animals purely as tools or resources useful to humans, is essentially a pragmatic way of valuing things, by what they are useful FOR, which is the same practical, use-based logic.
- Option B (Idealism): Idealism, in the philosophical sense, holds that reality or value is fundamentally grounded in ideas, minds, or ideals, often the OPPOSITE of judging things by mere practical use. Instrumentalism's use-based logic does not match this at all.
- Option C (Egalitarianism): Egalitarianism is the view that all beings or people deserve equal worth or treatment, which is essentially the opposite of instrumentalism's hierarchy where humans matter and other beings exist merely to serve them.
- Option D (None of the above): Since "pragmatism" closely matches the use-based, functional logic that defines "instrumentalism" in the passage, there's no need to fall back on this option.
The passage's use of "instrumentalism," valuing beings only for their usefulness to humans, mirrors the practical, function-first logic that "pragmatism" describes.
Therefore, the correct answer is Pragmatism.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
Which of the following is not true in the context of the passage?
Which of the following is not true in the context of the passage?
Updated On: Jul 14, 2026
- Western philosophy and science are both under the influence of religion.
- Western philosophical views on animals have been influenced by religious notions about them.
- Western religious notions on animals have justified subjection of animals to scientific experimentation.
- Some of the scientific views on animals have been influenced by religious notions about them.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (A): Western philosophy and science are both under the influence of religion.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
This is a "NOT true" question, so we need to find the one statement that the passage does NOT support, while confirming the other three are each backed by specific details in the passage.
- Option A (Western philosophy and science are both under the influence of religion): This is a sweeping, general claim that ALL of Western philosophy and science sit under religious influence. The passage's own Aristotle example works against this: Aristotle's idea that nature made things "for the sake of man" is explicitly said to PREDATE Christianity and to have been "largely unsupported by scripture" before it was later taken over by Aquinas. That is, in this very passage, a philosophical idea existed independently of, and prior to, religious doctrine, it was religion that absorbed a philosophical idea, not simply philosophy sitting "under the influence of" religion throughout. The passage supports specific overlaps in particular places, not a blanket claim that both fields are generally religion-driven.
- Option B (Western philosophical views on animals influenced by religious notions): This is supported in a narrower, more specific way, Aquinas's rational hierarchy, ranking the "intellectually inferior" beneath the "intellectually superior," is explicitly shown merging Aristotle's idea INTO a Christian theological framework, so this particular philosophical view on animals was indeed shaped through religious doctrine.
- Option C (Western religious notions justified subjection of animals to scientific experimentation): This is directly and explicitly stated: the passage says these religious/philosophical influences "have in turn enabled and justified the scientific exploration of the natural world and specifically the subjection of animals to experimentation," naming Bacon and Descartes as examples.
- Option D (Some scientific views on animals influenced by religious notions): This is also directly supported, Francis Bacon's belief that humanity should "recover that right over nature which belongs to it by divine bequest" explicitly frames a scientific pursuit in religious terms ("divine bequest").
Options B, C, and D each match specific, narrow details the passage actually states, while option A makes an unsupported, overly general claim that the passage's own Aristotle example actually contradicts.
Therefore, the correct answer (the statement that is NOT true) is Western philosophy and science are both under the influence of religion.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
It may be inferred from 'Rene Descartes’ view that
It may be inferred from 'Rene Descartes’ view that
Updated On: Jul 14, 2026
- It as irrational to assume that animals have awareness and some mental capacities.
- Animals are automata or they act mechanically.
- Neither (A) nor (B)
- Both (A) and (B)
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (D): Both (A) and (B).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
This question asks what can be inferred from Descartes's view as given in the passage, that he "likened the movements of a swallow to the workings of a clock" and held that "There is no prejudice to which we are more accustomed from our earliest years than the belief that dumb animals think."
- Option A (It is irrational to assume that animals have awareness and some mental capacities): Descartes explicitly calls the belief that "dumb animals think" a "prejudice," a term that implies an unfounded, irrational bias rather than a reasoned conclusion. Calling the belief in animal thought a mere prejudice directly implies that Descartes considered it irrational to assume animals possess awareness or thought.
- Option B (Animals are automata or they act mechanically): Descartes's comparison of a swallow's movements to "the workings of a clock" is a direct mechanical analogy, treating an animal's behaviour as governed by mechanism rather than mind, which is precisely the claim that animals are automata acting mechanically.
- Option C (Neither A nor B): Since the passage provides direct textual support for both A (dismissing animal thought as prejudice) and B (the clockwork analogy), it is inaccurate to say neither can be inferred.
- Option D (Both A and B): The clock analogy and the "prejudice" remark work together as two expressions of the same underlying Cartesian position, animals lack minds and operate mechanically, so both statements can be drawn from the same passage evidence at once.
Descartes's clockwork comparison and his dismissal of animal thought as prejudice are two sides of the same view, that animals are mindless, mechanically operating beings, so both inferences hold simultaneously rather than one excluding the other.
Therefore, the correct answer is Both (A) and (B).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top CLAT Questions
- In the realm of contemporary literature, the interplay between character and setting is a nuanced dance that shapes the narrative’s essence. The setting, often described with painstaking detail, becomes more than a backdrop; it becomes a character, influencing the plot and character development.
Consider, for instance, the barren expanse of the desert in Jhumpa Lahiri’s The Namesake. The arid landscape mirrors the sense of isolation felt by the protagonist, Gogol, as he navigates his identity crisis in a foreign land. The relentless sun and vast sands are not mere descriptions; they are the silent witnesses to his inner turmoil.
On the other end of the literary spectrum, there is Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things. The lush, vibrant Kerala backwaters are not just the setting; they are a character woven into the fabric of the story. The teeming, humid landscape reflects the complex web of human relationships and secrets that unravel in the narrative. This interplay is not confined to contemporary literature alone. In Shakespeare’s timeless tragedy Macbeth, the eerie and foreboding setting of the Scottish moors casts a dark shadow over the characters’ actions. The moors, shrouded in mist and mystery, serve as an ever-present omen of the impending tragedy. - The crisis of justice that is the subject matter of discussion in the media today is in fact the crisis of “justice for the middle class”. The main difference between India and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries is that whereas the middle class in these countries has reasonable access to justice, in India it does not. A vocal and powerful middle class has emerged in India since 1991. It is demanding reasonable access to justice. Much of the judicial reform effort will help meet this demand…
The question of justice for the poor is, however, an altogether different challenge. No country in the world has been able to secure justice for the poor. Most of the jails of the richest countries are filled with the poorest. The “masses” are more often victims of the criminal justice system than of crime. In India as well, jails are almost exclusively filled with the poor. The civil justice system is hardly accessible to them. They are often victimised by lawyers, touts and court staff. They are docket-excluded, a new type of untouchability. The language and the logic—and the colonial and feudal culture—of the judicial system are alien to them. It rarely takes cognisance of their needs and interests.
Their main concern, therefore, is to escape the attention of the justice system, criminal and civil. A landless Dalit person in the interior of Madhya Pradesh once gave me an insightful definition of a court from the perspective of the masses: “A court is a place where you are forcibly taken by the police to be punished; no one goes to a court.” In contrast, many lawyers and judges colloquially define a court as “a temple of justice where rights are protected”.
These sharply divergent visions mean that justice for one section is often injustice for another. Protecting the livelihood of traditional taxi and auto drivers from predatory pricing by corporate app-based taxi providers by imaginatively using the available tools of law to delay their incursion would be seen by the rich and by sections of the middle class as a failure of the judicial system, and possibly as also resulting in a downgrading of the “ease of doing business” measure. However, the masses would see such a judicial intervention as strong evidence of a good justice system. Although the conflict over competing visions of the nation and conflicting demands from social and economic segments have confined judicial reform of judicial administration mainly to “neutral” areas such as process reform, procedural law, technology, planning and court and case management, judge strength, and the workload of judges, there has been considerable improvement in these areas, and the judicial system has improved its performance.
[Extracted, with edits, from “Justice and the Two Ideas of India”, by G. Mohan Gopal, Frontline] - Everything she wanted was here, at Carignano, in Kasauli. Here, on the ridge of the mountain, in this quiet house. It was the place, and the time of life, that she had wanted and prepared for all her life-as she realized on the first day at Carignano, with a great, cool flowering of relief - and at last she had it. She wanted no one and nothing else. Whatever else came, or happened here, would be an unwelcome intrusion and distraction. This she tried to convey to the plodding postman with a cold and piercing stare from the height of the ridge onto his honest bull back. Unfortunately, he did not look up at her on the hilltop but stared stolidly down at the dust piling onto his shoes as he plodded on. A bullock-man, an oafish ox, she thought bitterly. She stepped backwards into the garden and the wind suddenly billowed up and threw the pine branches about as though to curtain her. She was grey, tall and thin and her silk sari made a sweeping, shivering sound and she fancied she could merge with the pine trees and be mistaken for one. To be a tree, no more and no less, was all she was prepared to undertake.
What pleased and satisfied her so, here at Carignano, was its barrenness. This was the chief virtue of all Kasauli of course-its starkness. It had rocks, it had pines, it had light and air. In every direction there was a sweeping view - to the north, of the mountains, to the south, of the plains. Occasionally an eagle swam through this clear unobstructed mass of light and air, that was all. And Carignano, her home on the ridge, had no more than that. Why should it? The sun shone on its white walls. Its windows were open the ones facing north opened on to the blue waves of the Himalayas flowing out and up to the line of ice and snow sketched upon the sky, while those that faced south looked down the plunging cliff to the plain stretching out, flat and sere to the blurred horizon.
Yes, there were some apricot trees close to the house. There were clumps of iris that had finished blooming. There was the kitchen with a wing of smoke lifting out of its chimney and a stack of wood outside its door. But these were incidental, almost unimportant.
[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from “Fire on the Mountain” by Anita Desai] - English literature is a vast and diverse field that has left an indelible mark on the world of letters. From the eloquent plays of William Shakespeare to the complex novels of Jane Austen and the profound poetry of William Wordsworth, English literature offers a window into the human experience. One of the luminaries of English literature is William Shakespeare, often hailed as the greatest playwright in the history of English language. His works, including Hamlet, Macbeth, and Romeo and Juliet, are celebrated for their exploration of human nature, love, ambition, and tragedy. His characters, such as the tormented Hamlet and the star-crossed lovers Romeo and Juliet, continue to captivate readers and audiences worldwide.
The 19th century ushered in a new era of literary giants. Jane Austen’s novels, such as Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility, provide incisive social commentary through the lens of wit and romance. Austen’s heroines, like Elizabeth Bennet and Elinor Dashwood, remain beloved literary figures known for their intelligence and resilience. The Romantic era brought forth poets like William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who celebrated * 8 UG the beauty of nature and the emotional intensity of the individual. Wordsworth’s ‘‘I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud’’ and Coleridge’s ‘‘The Rime of the Ancient Mariner’’ are testament to the power of the written words to evoke profound emotions and imagery. Moving towards 20th century, English literature continued to evolve. Virginia Woolf’s ground-breaking novel Mrs. Dalloway explored the inner thoughts and lives of its characters with a modernist narrative style. Dystopian visions, as seen in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four provided stark warnings about the dangers of totalitarianism and the erosion of individual freedom.
Today, English literature is a global phenomenon, transcending borders and languages. Indian authors like Arundhati Roy, with her novel The God of Small Things, have won prestigious international literary awards. The book not only explores intricate family dynamics but also delves into the broader socio-political landscape of India. In summary, English literature is a testament to the enduring power of storytelling and the written word. It encompasses an array of authors, themes, and styles that continue to captivate and inspire readers across the world. - On the evening of the 10th, General Dyer arrived at Amritsar, and the Deputy-Commissioner handed over the civil power to him. He issued a proclamation by word of mouth that no meetings should be held. Two days later, after there had been no sort of riot, nor murder, General Dyer heard that a meeting was to be held at the Jallianwala Bagh. He proceeded there with about fifty troops, half British, half Indian, and a certain number of Ghurkas, armed with their kukris. The Jallianwala Bagh is an open space, half a mile square, which has one entry wide enough for three persons. The troops got in and lined up on a mound of debris. The walls, seven feet high, and the surrounding houses enclosed the people. There were, too, three alleys through which the people might have been able to pass. Within thirty seconds of the troops getting in, General Dyer gave orders to fire, and the crowd of people, estimated at anything from 5,000 to 20,000, who were sitting on the ground peacefully listening to the mob oratory, were fired on. The result of the troops’ fire into the mass of people we do not know. But we do know that Dyer’s own estimate of the casualties resulting from ten minutes continual individual firing, was 400 to 500 killed and 1,500 wounded. The people were not able to escape. They were people who had not offered any violence and who had not been warned. These people were shot down. After ten minutes, the ammunition was exhausted and the troops marched off, and they left 1,500 wounded there. There were men lying there for two days, dying of thirst, eating the ground, bleeding to death and nobody to look after them. Those who lived nearby came and carried away some of the wounded from the heap of dead and dying, but the unfortunate country people died there miserably of their wounds. This is what is done in 1919 in British India…
Centuries hence you will find Indian children brought up to this spot, just as they visit now the Cawnpore Well, and you can imagine the feelings of these Indians for generations over this terrible business.
[Col. Wedgwood, MP, speaking in the British Parliament, 22 December 1919]
View More Questions