Home / D. Tradition, culture and religion / Part DIR
"God gave us dominion over animals."
many religious traditions read the dominion in Genesis as responsibility and care, not as a license to exploit. Pope Francis's encyclical Laudato Si' itself states that deriving from it an absolute dominion over other creatures is not a correct interpretation of the Bible. And right after speaking of dominion, the same chapter of Genesis describes a diet made of plants.
Short answer
Many religious traditions read the dominion in Genesis as responsibility, like that of someone looking after something that isn't theirs. Pope Francis, in the encyclical Laudato Si', wrote that deriving an absolute dominion over other creatures from it isn't a correct interpretation of the Bible. And in the very next verse (Genesis 1:29), the food given to humans is plants and fruit. Reading dominion as a license to exploit is choosing an interpretation, not following the text.
For children
Imagine someone leaves you in charge of a garden while they travel. Does being responsible for the garden mean you can pull up all the flowers? No! It means you should take care of it. Many religious people understand that this is what God asked of humans: to take care of animals, not to mistreat them.
"If God entrusted animals to human beings, how do you think He'd want them treated?"
Como pode aparecer
"It's in Genesis."
"God made animals for man."
"Who are you to contradict God?"
"God told Peter to kill and eat."
"Do you know better than the Bible?"
"Man is the crown of creation, and the animals were given to him."
"Jesus ate fish." (which is D5)
The strongest version
"It's in Genesis. God made animals for man. Who are you to contradict God?"
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1In Genesis 1:26-28, God gives human beings dominion over the animals.
- P2Having dominion over something includes the right to use it.
- P3What God authorizes is morally permitted.
- CSo using and eating animals is morally permitted.
The strong version rests on a text that is sacred to millions of people and deserves to be taken seriously. The problem lies in P2: reading "dominion" as unlimited use is disputed within the religious traditions themselves.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P2, and premise P3, being theological, can't be required of those who don't share the same faith.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument depends on a specific interpretation of "dominion":
Reading What it means Who holds it Dominion as ownership Animals belong to man, who can use them as he wishes A common reading, but disputed Dominion as responsibility Human beings care for creation on God's behalf Many Christian, Jewish and other traditions; Laudato Si' - b
Where the argument breaks
1. The text itself suggests another reading.
Right after the dominion (Genesis 1:26-28), verse 29 gives humans "every herb bearing seed" and "every tree, in the which is the fruit" as food. In the Genesis narrative, eating meat only appears after the flood.
2. The Catholic Church rejects absolute dominion.
In Laudato Si' (2015), Pope Francis wrote that deriving an absolute dominion over other creatures from the mandate in Genesis isn't a correct interpretation of the Bible, and linked the idea to "tilling and keeping" in Genesis 2:15.
3. There are religious traditions that defend animals.
Many Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains and Seventh-day Adventists practice or recommend vegetarianism for religious reasons. Religion doesn't speak with a single voice.
4. Permission isn't obligation.
Even if the text permitted eating animals, it wouldn't require it. A permission doesn't answer whether it's good to do, especially under the conditions of industrial animal farming.
5. In a public debate, the premise has to be shared.
For those who don't share the faith, "God permits it" isn't a reason. In a debate among people of different beliefs, one has to offer reasons everyone can assess.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Genesis 1 Verses 26-28 speak of dominion; verse 29 gives plants and fruit as food Biblical text (King James Version) Pope Francis, *Laudato Si'* (2015) Paragraph 67: absolute dominion over other creatures isn't a correct interpretation of the Bible Official encyclical of the Catholic Church - d
The strongest counter-reply: the Bible permits eating meat after the flood
The most serious version accepts the reading of care, but points out that in Genesis 9, after the flood, God explicitly permits eating animals, and that the Christian tradition has never forbidden meat.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Permission isn't a recommendation.
Many theologians read Genesis 9 as a concession to a fallen world, not as the ideal.
The permission doesn't include cruelty.
Even those who read the permission literally recognize the duty not to cause unnecessary suffering.
The context has changed.
A permission given under conditions of scarcity isn't a mandate for industrial animal farming.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Appeal to authority
Equivocation
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Selective reading
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Permission treated as duty
Biases
Motivated reasoning
The reading of the text that confirms the habit is chosen
General literature on motivated cognition
Teleological bias and agency detection
The natural order is read as someone's intention
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "having dominion over something authorizes any use".
If it applied to…The environmentTap to see
Destroying forests would be legitimate
Laudato Si' rejects exactly this
If it applied to…PetsTap to see
Mistreating them would be permitted
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Parents and childrenTap to see
Parental authority would authorize any treatment
No one accepts this
Contradictions
Many biblical rules aren't followed by those who cite dominion.
Which shows dominion isn't absolute.
Which contradicts the idea of unlimited use.
What the argument gets right
What is true
Faith is an important part of many people's lives, and it's legitimate to seek moral guidance in it. It's also true that biblical texts, at various points, permit eating animals, and that most Christian traditions don't require vegetarianism.
But
But the tradition itself offers another reading: dominion as care, plant food as the ideal of Eden, mercy toward all creatures. Those who use religion to defend exploitation are choosing one of the possible interpretations, and not the most generous one.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after
Go deeper in Questão de Ética
Chapters from the open-access collection A Journey Through Animal Ethics that discuss this argument in more detail:
- Attempts to Justify Speciesism That Appeal to Authorities Vol. I, ch. 13
- Could Metaphysical Characteristics Justify Speciesism? Vol. I, ch. 3