Do animals have rights script. What rights do animals have around the world? Different Ways to Express Love to Animals

I have a bruise on my right shoulder. It doesn't hurt much, but the bruise is noticeable. This is from an example. Maybe I'm not holding him well to my shoulder?

I went hunting over the weekend. He walked with a double-barreled Merkel 16-gauge through the fields and forest edges in search of hazel grouse. My grandfather with this gun went for hazel grouse back in the 40s, then my father in the 60s and 70s. Now I'm walking. True, they were more fortunate - I came across hazel grouses, but the shot flew past the target. But I am happy with any result. Got it, didn't get it - it's not very important to me. The main thing is me and my gun in the forest. The gun is my toolkit for direct interaction with nature. It gives me power, perhaps unfair, but power. Among birch trees, shrubs, tall wet grass in which my hazel grouse hides, it turns me into a local resident. Who is stronger, smarter, more dexterous, he is right. Terribly politically incorrect, isn't it? Yeah. Like everything in nature. Predators, hurricanes, floods - all this is a wild injustice. And me with a 16-gauge Merkel shotgun in the forest is also an injustice. Such an obvious manifestation of the injustice of the pre-politically correct era.

Not so long ago, I spoke with human rights activist Sergei Adamovich Kovalev. He turned out to be a real, even, I would say, an ardent defender of hunting. A person who has been defending the rights of people for many years does not simply refuse such protection to animals. He says that “animals have no rights”: “Right is a category that has to do exclusively with man. After all, an equal distribution of rights is supposed, that is, equality. Law is the same for everyone. A fly, a louse, a worm, a hare and a human cannot have equal rights.” And I agree with Sergei Adamovich. The very word "right" cannot refer to the animal kingdom. Including because the right always has another side - the duty. What are the responsibilities of animals? Multiply. There are each other. And everything else, understandable, physiological. It has nothing to do, as officials like to say, to the "legal field".

So there is a very serious problem in terminology. Returning to bureaucratic language, “substitution of concepts”: animals have neither rights nor obligations, but people have rights and obligations in relation to animals. And these human rights and obligations, of course, must be regulated by law. Within the framework of my legal rights in relation to the animal world, I went hunting. And a little earlier I bought a boar's leg, baked it in the oven with pleasure (in fact, my wife baked it) and ate it with even greater pleasure (in fact, not only me - I shared it with the guests).

There is an example in the history of mankind when "animal rights" were recognized as one of the priorities of state policy. And this example is disgusting. On November 24, 1933, a code of laws for the protection of animals was issued in Germany. Hitler then commented on the new Reich policy: "In the new Reich, cruelty to animals will be prohibited." In 1934, a new law appeared that completely banned hunting. The state tried everywhere to alleviate the plight of animals and protect "animal rights" even in the kitchen: in 1937, a method of cooking lobster was legalized, excluding its boiling alive. This example is terrifying precisely because the Nazi regime tried to give animals rights that only people had before, which means that they actually turned people into animals. What happened next is known to all.

I am a law-abiding person. And only in this sense do I define my rights and obligations. For me, you can eat a wild boar - eat it, you can eat a hazel grouse - eat a hazel grouse. And they will ban hunting, so I will stay hungry. In the meantime, hunting is the last legitimate refuge for politically incorrect conservative scoundrels. That is mine too. But there is a feeling that we don't have long. Political correctness will win us. And empowered boars, grouse and lobsters will escape my table. Considering the previous paragraph, there will be a terrible time.

Monkeys learned to talk, mastered the computer. Well, the line between man and animal is completely blurred? Archpriest Roman BRATCHIK, a systematic zoologist, reflects on the place that a person occupies in the system of animals and plants.

Main difference
- Father Roman, experiments with monkeys who were taught sign language refute the idea that man differs from animals in the presence of reason ...
- A very long time ago I was struck by one experience. A monkey living with humans for a long time was shown photographs of dogs, humans, monkeys, and her own, and asked to classify them. She identified herself as human, not ape. Mowgli, apparently, would have classified himself as a wolf (this is imprinting - an unconscious imprinting of an image that is assimilated as a native; normally, this is a mother, but in the experiment it can be anything). But, speaking of the presence of a mind in a monkey, we will run into the definition of a mind that does not exist. If by reason we understand the ability to form concepts and perform certain operations with them, yes, at some level the monkey copes with this. Another question is how long chains of such operations can it build? A person can think through and accumulate material, writing it down, encoding it with a system of signs. This is not the case with the monkey, in the monkey community. It seems to me that there is a lower mind - the ability to think abstractly - and there is a higher mind, inaccessible to the monkey.

“So what is the difference between humans and monkeys?”
- It is impossible to give a definition. Biology cannot even give a clear definition of how a dog differs from a cat. We will find a lot of intermediate forms. There are cats that are more like dogs and vice versa. There are certain types of animals that resemble both dogs and cats. We divide all the diversity of the animal world into some groups, but there is always something that doesn’t fit completely, this is generally a headache for all taxonomists, and I was engaged in taxonomy. Any definition is a setting of a boundary. And in empirical reality, the boundaries are always blurred to one degree or another. For example: a person has an internal environment, but where it begins and where it ends is unclear. When the mouth is closed, what is in my mouth is the internal environment, but if the mouth is open, where is the boundary? So even now in science the boundary between man and monkey is blurred.

The unbeliever will simply lose this boundary. The believer will define clearly - the presence of the spirit of God, only this makes a person a man. Outside of this, a person is just a taxonomic unit in the system of living organisms, a little more complex. Because of this, there will always be an opportunity for materialists to call some of the people not people. Tell me, if a person lost his mind as a result of some kind of trauma, did he cease to be a person? From our point of view, it has not stopped. And a non-believer here just can easily reach the point where you can kill such people, . If a person is one whose IQ is not lower than such and such a value, then such a patient, therefore, is not a person. And then its destruction will be considered as a social good! In Orthodoxy, we can define a person without the danger of losing some representative of humanity, regardless of what physical defects he has, what color of skin he has, nationality, education.

In Orthodox anthropology, there are two approaches to the definition of a person: trichotomous and dichotomous. According to the dichotomous, a person has a body and soul, and according to the trichotomous, a body, soul and spirit. The word "soul" is used here in different senses: the soul of the trichotomous system is the highest manifestation of the bodily, emotional, mental sphere. It is by the presence of this “corporeal” soul that we converge with our smaller brothers. Perhaps the latest research on monkeys suggests just that the mind, rationality, also belongs to this bodily area. The spirit, which makes us godlike, animals do not have. Another thing is why the Lord breathed His spirit into a person, could He breathe it into an amoeba? What, a spirit cannot fit into one cage? Maybe. The soul of a person is given to him immediately after fertilization, and there is only one cell, and there is already a spirit in this cell. So, the amoeba could be the same cell? But this is not. In the amoeba, apparently, there are no those abilities that could perceive the spirit. Man, on the other hand, is the most complex of the known living organisms, this is that fertile soil in which the seed of the spirit can germinate and bear fruit. Another thing is how we will deal with this grain, these are our personal problems.

This cardinal difference of a person can be observed even in the simplest situations. For example, a person has an aesthetic sense. It happens, of course, that birds bring flowers to their females. But this is not yet the aesthetics that a person has who appreciates the world, singles out harmony in it, and this harmony causes a resonance, an amazing state of mind. And what can resonate with harmony? Not flesh, anyway. The presence of God in the beauty of the world is harmony, it takes your breath away, you see the sunrise or sunset: “Ah!” -- and that's it. Man is "ah!" before sunset. I don't know if the younger brothers have this "ah!" Internally, I don't think so.

Dandelion death
- Many are convinced that before the fall of man there was no death in the world at all: neither animals nor plants died (although plants were given for food from the very beginning).
- In my concept, the death of a dandelion is death. And if so, then we will have to admit that the death of plants existed before the fall. Or we must introduce two concepts of death. Just as we introduced two concepts of "man" - biological and theological. The Scripture directly says about man that he was created immortal and after the fall he passed from one state to another, from immortality to mortality. Nothing is said about animals.

The point is that idle curiosity is alien to Orthodox theology. We have never attempted to find out in detail what is happening in hell, what is happening in heaven.

After the creation of earth and sky, plants and animals, God created man and "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7).
Mosaic from the cathedral in Montreal, Italy. 12th century

Orthodoxy is essentially very practical, it shows the way, teaches us how to go, and gives us faith. And what will happen there, then - go and see. The Bible says a lot about the peace of the soul, about love - we will find a colossal number of references and direct commandments of Christ about this. Evangelist John ends his sermon with only one thing: children, love one another. If you love, love will teach you everything, it will teach you how to walk, how to communicate with people, everything will be fine. But about the creation of the world... This was told to the Jews, who had just spent several centuries in Egypt, probably infected with the Egyptian ideas about the universe, which had to be cut off immediately. There was no task to give a consistent picture of the creation of the world. It is said that the sun was created on the fourth day, respectively, the solar god Ra is in the backyard, animals that were also deified in Egypt, all these cats, birds, crocodiles, and so on, it turns out, were also not created on the first day. It is emphasized that they are created, they are not gods, they are creations, above all is the uncreated God, who has the nature of being in himself. Often they try to see a detailed scientific picture of the world in this stroke, but this is wrong.

Geese and cannonade
-- Protecting the rights of animals is now very fashionable. People do not eat meat, do not wear fur, protest against experiments on rats, against animal testing of cosmetics and medicines. Should a Christian be involved in this?
- If he sees that someone is senselessly mocking an animal, he should intervene. But we are not defending the rights of animals, we are defending the morality of the divine law. We fight the spread of malice and hatred. For the sake of cosmetics, the animal should not be tortured - cosmetics are not vital. And if a vaccine is needed so that people do not die, I think it can be tested on animals. This limit must be defined by the individual. It is impossible to give a list here: it is possible, but it is impossible. It seems to me that we just need to cultivate a sense of conscience in a person, and he himself will feel the line that it is better not to step over. I personally think that if St. Sergius could walk in leather shoes, then, therefore, this is already unprincipled.

- Is it necessary to save the endangered Amur tiger?
“But not to the detriment of the person. If it enriches the gene pool of nature, which, again, a person uses.

“But a man does not use a tiger!”
"He doesn't use a tiger." The gene pool is a kind of complex, in which there should be a fairly large variety, we use something directly and something indirectly. Then, we never know what we will need tomorrow. But if it turned out that in order to save the Amur tiger, we need to leave twenty thousand people without food, without territory ... If a tribe is dying and it is necessary to kill the last representative of the species from the Red Book - say, a whale, then it is better to kill a whale than people will die.

“And hunting can be a Christian occupation, don’t you think?”
“I hunted myself, but I gave up even before I was baptized. I once had a dream: I heard, as if far, far away, a military cannonade was coming, beyond the horizon. And slowly this cannonade begins to approach me. I see a flock of geese flying and firing around them. And now they fly further, and the cannonade goes further, further, further after them. I woke up no longer a hunter. That is, if I had to feed my family, there would be no problem. Such hunting is simply an inevitable or hard to avoid evil of our sinful world. But when they hunt for pleasure, it seems to me that this is wrong. Now for the sake of food in Russia, almost no one hunts, this is already more entertaining. Moreover, some hunters generally do not eat what they kill. They don’t like this food: why, because you can get good food. And this boar still needs to be boiled for several hours, just to chew. I remember someone brought us a piece of elk from the hunt at the university. It was boiled, in my opinion, for six hours, until it became possible to eat it.

Please note: some people cannot cut off the head of a fish that flutters. It's one thing when we overpower this normal reaction for the sake of the fact that we need to feed someone. And another thing is when we turn it into the norm or even into pleasure. I think it's some kind of bitterness. Because for a Christian, killing is unnatural.

What about stray dogs? They are dangerous, but the trapping service simply kills them - should the Christian conscience put up with this?
- It's like a war. Stray dogs can be a direct threat, and there are cases where these dogs form packs where they are even more dangerous. A wolf does not attack a person, but dogs just attack, so they have to be destroyed. But at the same time, I feel sorry for them, of course, because in this situation it is our fault - it was we who bred them. Here is a feeling of universal human guilt, this is our universal human oversight that we abandoned these dogs, and now we are forced to kill them. Now it’s good, there is sterilization of animals. And before, they usually drowned puppies. We had a poodle. She had the first litter of about ten puppies, the second litter was also somewhere around that, and I drowned the puppies if I could not give them away. At the same time, the very fact of killing puppies with a disease resonated in the soul. And then we just got baptized. And I got to Father John (Krestyankin), I had many questions, and here I say, father, I am ashamed, I have such a question. He says: well, what? I say: yes, this is the situation, the dog is whelping, the soul does not lie to kill these puppies, you understand. I can sink, but it's hard. He says: if you don't want to kill, everything will be fine. As a result, the dog gave birth to only two live puppies and several stillborn ones. I didn't have to kill anyone.

Interviewed by Marina KOFTAN

The Universal Declaration of Animal Rights was solemnly announced in Paris on October 15, 1978 at the headquarters of UNESCO.

http://www.site provides the full text of the Universal Declaration of Animal Rights, revised by the International League for Animal Rights in 1989, presented to the Director-General of UNESCO and made public in 1990.

Preamble:

Considering that Life is one, all living beings have a common origin and have acquired differences in the course of the evolution of the species,

Considering that all living beings have natural rights, and that any animal with nervous system has certain rights

Whereas the contempt and even the mere ignorance of these natural rights cause serious damage to Nature and lead men to commit crimes against animals,

Whereas the coexistence of species implies the recognition by the human species of the right of another animal species to life,

Considering that respect for animals by man is inseparable from respect for man by man,

it declares that:

Article 1

All animals have equal rights to exist within the conditions of biological balance.

Article 2

All animal life is entitled to respect.

Article 3

1. Animals must not be mistreated or abused.

2. If it is necessary to kill an animal, it must be instantaneous, painless and without causing any prior suffering to the animal.

3. A dead animal must be treated with decency.

Article 4

1 Wild animals have the right to live and breed freely in their own natural environment.

2 Prolonged imprisonment of wild animals, hunting and fishing as a pastime, as well as any use of wild animals for reasons that are not vital, are contrary to this fundamental right.

Article 5

1. Any animal dependent on a person has the right to proper care and attention.

2. In no case should an animal be abandoned or killed unjustifiably.

3. All forms of breeding and use of an animal must respect the physiology and natural behavior defined for the species.

4. Exhibitions, demonstrations and films involving animals must also respect their dignity and must not contain any violence at all.

Article 6

1. Experiments on animals that cause them physical or psychological suffering violate the rights of animals.

2. Methods for restoring the number of animals should be developed and systematically implemented.

Article 7

Any act resulting in the unjustified death of an animal, and any decision leading to such an act, are crimes against life.

Article 8

1. Any act that endangers the survival of a wild species, and any decision leading to such an act, is tantamount to genocide, i.e. crimes against the species.

2. Killing of wild animals, pollution and destruction of the biosphere - acts of genocide.

Article 9

1. A certain legal status of animals and their rights must be recognized by law.

2. Animal protection and safety should be represented at the level of Government organizations.

If animals have rights?

Back in 1987, 21 members of the European Community signed Strasbourg "European Convention for the Protection of Pets". Our country is still only considering the possibility of accession to this Convention. European Convention for the protection of the rights of pets Preamble Member States of the European Council signed the following: - consider that the aim of the European Council is to achieve full consent among its members; - to recognize that a person has a moral obligation to all living beings, and take into account that pets have a special connection with a person; - consider important the contribution of pets to improving the quality human life and their significant value to society; - reckon with the difficulties that arise in connection with the large the variety of animals that live with man; - take into account the risk arising from crowding of indoor animals, for human hygiene, health and safety and other animals; - to consider that the maintenance of representatives of the wild fauna as pets should not be encouraged; - recognize the various conditions that govern acquisition, commercial and non-commercial breeding, placement and trade in pets; - recognize that pets are not always kept in conditions conducive to their health and well-being; - note that the attitude towards pets is very varied, sometimes due to lack of knowledge; - consider that the development of common standards in relation to room animals that increase the responsibility of owners is not not only desirable, but also a real chain. Chapter 1. General Provisions Article 1. Definitions 1. A pet is any animal that which is or will be contained by a person, in particular in your home, for your personal convenience and enjoyment. 2. Trade in pets means regular business transactions in reasonable amounts, in which pet owner changes. 3. Commercial breeding means breeding animals within reasonable limits mainly for profit. 4. Animal shelter means non-profit an establishment where pets are kept, in particular homeless. 5. A homeless animal means a pet, who does not have a home or is outside the boundaries of the property its owner and is not under the control or direct supervision of the owner or person responsible for the animal. 6. Competent authority means the authority designated country of the European Community to comply with this Convention. Article 2. Scope and conditions of performance 1. Each party shall take the necessary steps to fulfillment of the terms of this Convention in relation to; a) pets kept by a private person, or kept for sale, breeding, or kept in shelters; b) homeless animals in countries where this is possible. 2. The signing of this Convention will not affect the implementation of other treaties for the protection or conservation of animals under threat. 3. Nothing in this Convention shall affect the freedom of the Parties to take stricter measures to protect pets or apply the provisions contained in this Convention to categories of animals that were not specifically mentioned in this document. Chapter II. Principles of keeping pets Article 3. Basic principles for ensuring well-being animals 1. No one should hurt a pet, suffering or anxiety. 2. No one should give up their pet. Article 4 Content 1. Any person who keeps pets or looking after them is responsible for their health and well-being. 2. Any person who maintains or looks after animals, provides them with a comfortable room (place) and takes care of them, considering depending on the species and breed animal their environmental needs in particular; a) provides sufficient quality feed and water; b) provides an opportunity for walking; c) take all measures to prevent the animal from escaping. 3. An animal cannot be kept as a pet if: a) the conditions of paragraph 2 above are not met; b) if, despite the observance of these conditions, the animal does not can adapt to adversity. Article 5 Breeding Any person who selects pets for breeding, should be responsible for the anatomical, physiological and behavioral characteristics that can threaten the health and well-being of the offspring and the mother. Article 6. Age restrictions on the acquisition of animals A person under the age of 16 may not purchase any room animal without the consent of parents and persons having parental rights. Article 7. Training No animal should be trained in such a way that it harmed his health and well-being. Especially it is unacceptable to force an animal to exceed its natural abilities or strength, as well as the use of auxiliary agents that may cause injury, pain, suffering, or animal anxiety. Article 8. Trade, commercial breeding and overexposure animals, animal shelters 1. Any person engaged in commercial breeding or trade in pets, also containing a shelter for animals at the time of the entry into force of this Convention in within a period of time determined by each party, should notify the competent authorities. Any person who wishes to engage in one of the above activities, must also declare their intention competent authorities. 2. The application to the competent authority must indicate: a) the type of pets that are handled or planned to do; b) responsible person and his special training; c) a description of the premises and equipment used or will be used. 3. The above activities can only be carried out: a) if the responsible person has special knowledge and abilities required for this job, or as a result vocational training or sufficient work experience with pets will acquire the necessary knowledge and preparation; b) if the premises and the equipment used correspond to the requirements of Article 4. 4. The competent authority determines, on the basis of the application, made under the terms of paragraph 1, compliance with its terms, set out in paragraph 3. If the conditions are not adequate, special events are recommended, and if necessary for animal welfare, start and continue such activities are prohibited. Article 9. Advertising, entertainment, competitions and similar Events 1. Pets should not be used as advertising, to participate in entertainment, exhibitions and similar events if: a) the organizers did not create appropriate conditions for pets in accordance with the requirements of article 4, paragraph 2; b) there is a threat to the health and welfare of pets. 2. It is forbidden to give any substances, carry out treatments or use devices that increase or increase decrease in the natural characteristics of the animal: a) during the competition; b) at any other time when it may endanger health and welfare of the animal. Article 10 Surgical operations 1. Surgery to change appearance pet or other non-medical purposes must be prohibited, including: a) cutting tails; b) circumcision of the ears; c) voice change; d) removal of fangs and claws. 2. An exception to this prohibition (paragraph 1) may be done only: a) if the veterinarian considers non-curative interventions necessary for the animal according to veterinary medical indications or for the benefit of the animal itself; b) to prevent reproduction. 3. Carrying out the operation: a) operations in which the animal experiences or may experience severe pain, should be carried out only under anesthesia by a veterinarian or under his supervision; b) operations in which anesthesia is not required, can carried out by competent under national law face. Article 1.1 Killing 1. Only a veterinarian or other competent person may kill a pet, except emergency circumstances, when it is necessary to stop suffering of an animal, and a veterinarian or other competent the person cannot be invited quickly or in other emergencies circumstances provided by the national legislation. Every killing must be done with minimal physical or mental suffering according to the circumstances. Chosen method killing, except in exceptional cases, must: a) cause immediate loss of consciousness and death, or b) begin with deep full anesthesia, accompanied by a shock that will eventually cause death. The person responsible for the killing must ensure that that the animal has died. 2. The following methods of killing must be prohibited: a) drowning and other methods of strangulation, if they do not cause the effect required in paragraph 16; b) the use of any toxic substances or preparations, the dose and route of administration of which cannot be controlled, to give the effect referred to in paragraph 1; c) cutaneous application of electricity, if this is not preceded by loss of consciousness. Chapter III. Special measures for stray animals Article 12. Downsizing If a Party considers that the number of stray animals poses a problem, it must take appropriate legal and/or administrative measures necessary to reduction in numbers in a way that does not cause animals of inevitable pain, suffering or fear. a) such measures should include the following requirements: - capture of animals must be carried out with causing them minimal physical or mental suffering; - the keeping or killing of captured animals must conducted in accordance with the principles set out in this conventions; b) The parties must consider: - cats and dogs must be identified by appropriate ways, with the subsequent registration of their numbers, as well as names and addresses of owners; - reduction of unplanned breeding of dogs and cats by carrying out castration of these animals; - stimulation of the search for stray dogs and cats and information about it to the competent authorities. Article 13. Exceptions for catching, keeping and killing An exception to the principles proposed in this Convention on trapping, keeping and killing stray and homeless animals, can only be done within the national disease control programs. Chapter IV. Information and education Article 14 Information and educational programs Parties should encourage the development of information and educational programs to promote awareness organizations and individuals involved in the content, breeding, training, trade and overexposure of indoor animals, on the terms and principles of this Convention. In these programs, particular attention should be paid to the following moments: a) the need to prepare animals for commercial chains or competitions by persons having the relevant knowledge and capabilities; b) the need to dissuade: - give pets to persons under 16 years of age without the consent of their parents or persons having parental rights; - give pets as a reward, prize or premiums; - unscheduled breeding of pets; c) the possibility of negative consequences for health and welfare of wild animals if they are purchased as pets; d) the risk of irresponsible acquisition of pets, as this leads to an increase in the number of animals from which refuse. Chapter V Article 21 Reservations 1. Any State may at the time of signature or deposit instruments of ratification, approval or agreement of the Convention declare that it reserves the right to one or more reservations to Article 6 and Article 10 paragraph 1 c. None no other reservations can be made. In chapters V, VI, VII, articles 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 The Convention stipulates the conditions for signing, ratifying, denunciation and notification of this document. The convention was signed by: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Northern Ireland, Germany. Material provided Olga MIRONOVA

Monkeys learned to talk, mastered the computer. Well, the line between man and animal is completely blurred? About what place a person occupies in the system of animals and plants, reflects Archpriest Roman Bratchik, systematic zoologist.

Reference. Archpriest Roman Bratchik K was born in 1949 in Baku. In 1972 he graduated from the Faculty of Biology of Moscow State University. Worked in the laboratory of evolutionary zoology and genetics of the Biological and Soil Institute of the Far East scientific center. He received baptism in 1985. In 1989 he was ordained Metropolitan Yuvenaly of Kursk and Belgorod. Since 2005 - Rector of the Assumption Church in the city of Kurchatov, Kursk Region. He teaches the course "Science and Religion" at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies of Kursk State University.

Main difference

Father Roman, experiments with monkeys who were taught sign language refute the idea that man differs from animals in the presence of reason ...

A very long time ago I was struck by an experience. A monkey living with humans for a long time was shown photographs of dogs, humans, monkeys, and her own, and asked to classify them. She identified herself as human, not ape. Mowgli, apparently, would have classified himself as a wolf (this is imprinting - an unconscious imprinting of an image that is assimilated as a native; normally, this is a mother, but in the experiment it can be anything). But, speaking of the presence of a mind in a monkey, we will run into the definition of a mind that does not exist. If by mind we mean the ability to form concepts and perform certain operations with them, yes, at some level the monkey copes with this. Another question is how long chains of such operations will it be able to build? A person can think through and accumulate material, writing it down, encoding it with a system of signs. This is not the case with the monkey, in the monkey community. It seems to me that there is a lower mind - the ability to think abstractly - and there is a higher mind, inaccessible to the monkey.

So what is the difference between humans and monkeys?

It is impossible to give a definition. Biology cannot even give a clear definition of how a dog differs from a cat. We will find a lot of intermediate forms. There are cats that are more like dogs and vice versa. There are certain types of animals that resemble both dogs and cats. We divide all the diversity of the animal world into some groups, but there is always something that doesn’t fit completely, this is generally a headache for all taxonomists, and I was engaged in taxonomy. Any definition is a boundary setting. And in empirical reality, the boundaries are always blurred to one degree or another. For example: a person has an internal environment, but where it begins and where it ends is unclear. When the mouth is closed, what is in my mouth is the internal environment, but if the mouth is open, where is the boundary? So even now in science the boundary between man and monkey is blurred.

The unbeliever will simply lose this boundary. The believer will define clearly - the presence of the spirit of God, only this makes a person a man. Outside of this, a person is just a taxonomic unit in the system of living organisms, a little more complex. Because of this, there will always be an opportunity for materialists to call some of the people not people. Tell me, if a person lost his mind as a result of some kind of trauma, did he cease to be a person? From our point of view, it has not stopped. And a non-believer here can easily reach the point where you can kill such people, believing that they are simply not people. If a person is one whose IQ is not lower than such and such a value, then such a patient, therefore, is not a person. And then its destruction will be considered as a social good! In Orthodoxy, we can define a person without the danger of losing some representative of humanity, regardless of what physical defects he has, what color of skin he has, nationality, education.

In Orthodox anthropology, there are two approaches to the definition of a person: trichotomous and dichotomous. According to the dichotomous, a person has a body and soul, and according to the trichotomous, a body, soul and spirit. The word "soul" is used here in different senses: the soul of the trichotomous system is the highest manifestation of the bodily, emotional, mental sphere. It is by the presence of this "corporeal" soul that we converge with our smaller brothers. Perhaps the latest research on monkeys suggests just that the mind, rationality, also belongs to this bodily area. The spirit, which makes us godlike, animals do not have. Another thing is why the Lord breathed His spirit into a person, could He breathe it into an amoeba? What, a spirit cannot fit into one cage? Maybe. The soul of a person is given to him immediately after fertilization, and there is only one cell, and there is already a spirit in this cell. So, the amoeba could be the same cell? But this is not. In the amoeba, apparently, there are no those abilities that could perceive the spirit. Man, on the other hand, is the most complex of the known living organisms, this is the fertile soil in which the grain of the spirit can germinate and bear fruit. Another thing is how we will deal with this grain, these are our personal problems.

This cardinal difference of a person can be observed even in the simplest situations. For example, a person has an aesthetic sense. It happens, of course, that birds bring flowers to their females. But this is not yet the aesthetics that a person has, which evaluates the world around him, singles out harmony in it, and this harmony causes a resonance, an amazing state of mind. And what can resonate with harmony? Not flesh, anyway. The presence of God in the beauty of the world - this is harmony, it takes your breath away, you see the sunrise or sunset: "Ah!" - and that's it. Man is "ah!" before sunset. I don't know if the younger brothers have this "ah!" Internally, I don't think so.

Dandelion death

Many are convinced that before the fall of man there was no death in the world at all: neither animals nor plants died (although plants were given for food from the very beginning).

In my concept, the death of a dandelion is death. And if so, then we will have to admit that the death of plants existed before the fall. Or we must introduce two concepts of death. Just as we introduced two concepts of "man" - biological and theological. The Scripture directly says about man that he was created immortal and after the fall he passed from one state to another, from immortality to mortality. Nothing is said about animals.

The point is that idle curiosity is alien to Orthodox theology. We have never attempted to find out in detail what is happening in hell, what is happening in heaven.

Orthodoxy is essentially very practical, it shows the way, teaches us how to go, and gives us faith. And what will happen there, then - go and see. The Bible says a lot about the world of the soul, about love - we will find a colossal number of references and direct commandments of Christ about this. Evangelist John ends his sermon with only one thing: children, love one another. If you love, love will teach you everything, it will teach you how to walk, how to communicate with people, everything will be fine. But about the creation of the world... This was told to the Jews, who had just spent several centuries in Egypt, probably infected with the Egyptian ideas about the universe, which had to be cut off immediately. There was no task to give a consistent picture of the creation of the world. It is said that the sun was created on the fourth day, respectively, the solar god Ra is in the backyard, animals that were also deified in Egypt, all these cats, birds, crocodiles, and so on, it turns out, were also not created on the first day. It is emphasized that they are created, they are not gods, they are creations, above all is the uncreated God, who has the nature of being in himself. Often they try to see a detailed scientific picture of the world in this stroke, but this is wrong.

Geese and cannonade

– Protecting the rights of animals is now very fashionable. People do not eat meat, do not wear fur, protest against experiments on rats, against animal testing of cosmetics and medicines. Should a Christian be involved in this?

- If he sees that someone is senselessly mocking an animal, he should intervene. But we are not defending the rights of animals, we are defending the morality of the divine law. We fight the spread of malice and hatred. For the sake of cosmetics, the animal should not be tortured - cosmetics are not vital. And if a vaccine is needed so that people do not die, I think it can be tested on animals. This limit must be defined by the individual. It is impossible to give a list here: it is possible, but it is impossible. It seems to me that we just need to cultivate a sense of conscience in a person, and he himself will feel the line that it is better not to step over. I personally think that if St. Sergius could walk in leather shoes, then, therefore, this is already unprincipled.

- Is it necessary to save the endangered Amur tiger?

Just not to the detriment of the person. If it enriches the gene pool of nature, which, again, a person uses.

- But a man does not use a tiger!

He doesn't use a tiger. The gene pool is a kind of complex, in which there should be a fairly large variety, we use something directly and something indirectly. Then, we never know what we will need tomorrow. But if it turned out that in order to save the Amur tiger, we need to leave twenty thousand people without food, without territory ... If a tribe is dying and it is necessary to kill the last representative of the species from the Red Book - say, a whale, then it is better to kill the whale than people will die.

- And hunting can be an occupation of a Christian, what do you think?

I myself hunted, but even before baptism I gave up. I once had a dream: I heard, as if far, far away, a military cannonade was coming, beyond the horizon. And slowly this cannonade begins to approach me. I see a flock of geese flying and firing around them. And now they fly further, and the cannonade goes further, further, further after them. I woke up no longer a hunter. That is, if I had to feed my family, there would be no problem. Such hunting is simply an inevitable or hard to avoid evil of our sinful world. But when they hunt for pleasure, it seems to me that this is wrong. Now for the sake of food in Russia, almost no one hunts, this is already more entertaining. Moreover, some hunters generally do not eat what they kill. They don’t like this food: why, because you can get good food. And this boar still needs to be boiled for several hours, just to chew. I remember someone brought us a piece of elk from the hunt at the university. It was boiled, in my opinion, for six hours, until it became possible to eat it.

Save a cat - kill 75 sheep- Maxim Stepanenko

What about stray dogs? They are dangerous, but the trapping service simply kills them - should the Christian conscience put up with this?

It's like a war. Stray dogs can be a direct threat, and there are cases where these dogs form packs where they are even more dangerous. A wolf does not attack a person, but dogs just attack, so they have to be destroyed. But at the same time, it is a pity for them, of course, because in this situation our fault is that we have bred them. Here is a feeling of universal human guilt, this is our universal human oversight that we abandoned these dogs, and now we are forced to kill them. Now it’s good, there is sterilization of animals. And before, they usually drowned puppies. We had a poodle. She had the first litter of about ten puppies, the second litter was also somewhere around that, and I drowned the puppies if I could not give them away. At the same time, the very fact of killing puppies with a disease resonated in the soul. And then we just got baptized. And I got to Father John (Krestyankin), I had many questions, and here I say, father, I am ashamed, I have such a question. He says: well, what? I say: yes, this is the situation, the dog is whelping, the soul does not lie to kill these puppies, you understand. I can sink, but it's hard. He says: if you don't want to kill, everything will work out. As a result, the dog gave birth to only two live puppies and several stillborn ones. I didn't have to kill anyone.