Do Dumb Animals Reason?
By Merritt E. Cornell
THOSE who endeavor to prove that mankind are possessed of natural immortality, have generally based it upon the supposition that man’s superiority above the beast was because he has an immortal soul, and, consequently, reason: but the beast, being destitute of soul, has only instinct. But, to this claim, we find at least two insurmountable objections: - The term “soul” is applied to beasts in numerous instances in the Scriptures.
- There are on record very many instances where brutes have manifested the attribute of reason in an unmistakable manner. The sagacity and reason manifested by some dogs is truly wonderful. Of the many instances published in the papers, I will give only two, the first, on the authority of the Portland (Me.) Press, and the second, by the Christian Union.
“A short time ago, a female Newfoundland dog was in the habit of coming to the house of a lady of this city, who would throw it pieces of cold meat, which the dog would eat, and, having satisfied its hunger, go away again. So confirmed did this habit become, that at a certain hour, daily, the lady would expect the dog, and the animal would put in an appearance. A few days ago, before feeding her, the lady said to her, ‘Why don’t you bring me one of your puppies?’ repeating the question several times as she stood at the window, the dog looking at her in the face with an expression of intelligence, as if it understood every word the lady said. The next day, to the lady’s astonishment, at the usual hour, the dog returned, and lo and behold! was accompanied by a little puppy. The lady fed both dogs, and then took up the puppy into the window, when the old dog scampered off and did not return for three days. At the end of that time, the dog again appeared, when, after feeding it, the lady said: ‘Next time bring all your puppies; I want to see them;’ and yesterday morning, sure enough, the dog returned, accompanied by three Newfoundland pups. Several of the neighbors saw the whole transaction, and declared that they considered this one of the most wonderful proofs of the sagacity of the dog they have ever known. Where the dog came from, and to whom it belongs, is not known, but we have the name of the lady and also of those who were eye-witnesses to the occurrences as narrated by us.” We are glad to see that some of the D. D.’s are getting their eyes open on this subject. Dr. A. L. Stone, who is called the Beecher of the Pacific coast, has spoken out very plainly. The following report of a lecture by the Dr., I clip from the Daily Call of San Francisco. It speaks for itself: “The announcement of a lecture by Dr. Stone, upon ‘reason and instinct,’ was sufficient in itself to call together the large and intellectual audience who assembled at his new church on Tuesday evening. He introduced his subject by calling attention to the close relationship of mankind with the ‘lower life.’ He was inclined to argue with Darwin rather than oppose him in his theory of natural selection, although not in his method of accounting for the origin of humanity. The lecturer found the definition of ‘reason,’ or ‘instinct,’ includes in one term some of the attributes of the other, and it seemed very difficult to draw the line, to say where one ended and the other began. He demolished various definitions advanced under this head. Moral science, said he, is slowly and reluctantly approaching the conclusion that dumb animals have a share of reasoning power. Such a conclusion does not degrade the human to elevate the animal. High authorities were cited in support of the intellectual capabilities of dumb animals, and many illustrations given of their mental powers. There is, said the lecturer, as much individuality in the brute as in man. It resolves, thinks, reasons, and doubts, and the more the brain of a dumb animal resembles man, the nearer do its powers approach those of man. I believe, said the lecturer, there is a soul in animals, and I do not fear the logical or theological results of that admission. It is a low kind of soul, with impassable limits set about it, without moral aspirations or moral consciousness, yet perfect in its sphere and not unworthy of the considerate fellowship of the human race. “The lecturer gave instances to show that experience and reasoning power alone could account for the action of some dumb animals. Was it, he would ask, too much99to say, with Agassiz, that the faculties taken together constituted reason? To man, the invisible and the spiritual can be revealed; to the brute, it cannot. This, said the lecturer, is a mournful deficiency in our mute brother. We would raise him if we could to the high sphere to which he so nearly approaches; of which he so touchingly falls short. We almost feel as though he would not be fairly treated if he did not have immortality. It seems as though he has too much soul for it to be utterly extinguished. Some writers would hope for a future life for the brutes; so clear and calm a reason as Bishop Butler says that such an inference contains no difficulty. The poet Rogers could hardly persuade himself that the brutes would have no compensation after death. The lecturer concluded by saying that he would be glad if he might hope that the ‘talk’ that evening would stir up in his hearers a feeling of kindness and friendship for the dumb animals; that it would cause their rights to be held more sacred; that their claims to good treatment would be held more inviolable; that any one of his hearers would thenceforth strike from his list of friends any one who might ill-treat a dumb animal. “The lecture closed amidst applause.”