The only problem with giving animals souls concerns at what level do you stop? If a dog has a spiritual aspect or soul, does a chipmunk? A bird? A worm? What about a fly? Or bacteria? In fact, perhaps all living things have a spiritual aspect. Or are we all part of one gigantic spirit? There are some religions that believe we all share the same common soul. In such a belief, perhaps all life has a spiritual sense to it. Just as there is no solid evidence that we have souls, there hasn’t been any conclusive evidence that animals have souls. But since we have a “feeling” that we have some sort of spiritual part to ourselves, perhaps it is true for animals too.
This is the view adopted by Aristotle. He argued that there are three functions to a soul, and these functions are determined by the kind of material body which the soul actualises or animates. Firstly there is the vegetable, a soul which is simply for nourishment and growth (i.e. at plant level). Secondly there is an appetitive soul which has the desire and passion which is controlled by reason, and has its own virtues such as courage, temperance and liberality. Finally there is the rational soul which is the seat of the “intellectual virtues” such as wisdom and understanding. This includes for example the mastery of science which in order to be a virtue must be done to the best of one’s ability. This final function of the soul is what makes humans stand out from the rest of creation according to Aristotle.
We can also the view the other extreme which is that humans do not have a soul at all. The concept of human evolution was bitterly opposed by advocates of religion because it introduces a problem. With the Genesis account of the origin of man the moment of soul implantation was precise. With evolution how could one determine when the soul-less animal had developed into a human with a ‘soul’, particularly when the process involved many thousands of years? Most Christian denominations now accept evolution as factual so they have to face defining the stage when ‘souls’ were first made available. Christians are convinced after much weighing that ‘souls’ have no weight so there is no body weight loss at death but Christians are not sure where the ‘soul’ goes. Here again the Bible gives several conflicting answers “absent from the body, present with the Lord”; “the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall arise”; ‘the soul that sinneth it shall die”; “the smoke of their torments ascendeth for ever”.
Furthermore the idea of reincarnation of the soul in some other physical body brings in another element. It almost makes it mandatory to kill as many of the worst creatures as possible so that ‘souls’ are liberated and hopefully enter higher life forms. Where is the blessed abode of ‘souls’ too? Is it up there in the stratosphere, on this earth, or in the infinite expanse of space at near absolute zero temperature? Could it just be that a large proportion of the human race is still being conned by charlatans? If humans have no ‘soul’ then all the rigmarole associated with religion is silly humbug and unworthy of humankind.
But do humans alone have a soul? The argument that is commonly used against the view of animals having no souls is the advancement argument. The advancement argument states: “Animals are not as advanced and are not as intelligent as humans, so therefore we have a soul and they do not, so therefore we are allowed to eat them (except, for some reason, the ones we keep as pets).” Moreover there are many people who believe in the traditional religious view that only human beings are made “in the image of God” and that only humans have souls on this account. Vegetarians with this view would point out that regardless of whether or not animals possess a soul, animals still feel pain and suffering just as we do, and animals still value their lives just as we value ours. Therefore, many of the people who believe that only humans have souls still agree with the principle that it is wrong to inflict death and suffering on animals simply for the pleasure of tasting meat.
However I think that it is not just humans that have souls, as if souls do exist then animals, indeed all organisms have souls, as a dog is far more rational than a foetus, and yet the foetus is described as having a soul by many who oppose the idea of animals having soul. Thus if we say that a dog has a soul, we can suppose that a cat does, and then a rat, and a caterpillar, and continue further back into the animal kingdom and determine that all organisms indeed have souls. This is further backed up by the view of evolution, as we are part of the animal kingdom having evolved from apes, therefore apes must have souls, as it seems to bizarre to suggest that souls suddenly developed when the first homo sapiens originated. Therefore we can again say that there should not be a limit to how far back one can trace the idea of a soul, but rather the notion of a soul extends further than humans and deep into the animal kingdom. Consequently by continual regress we can suppose that all organisms have souls of one kind or another, admittedly being severely different.