Wikipedia

The Universal Kinship

The Universal Kinship is a 1906 book by American zoologist and philosopher J. Howard Moore. In the book, Moore advocates for the doctrine of Universal Kinship, a secular sentiocentric philosophy, which mandates the ethical consideration and treatment of all sentient beings based on Darwinian principles of shared evolutionary kinship, and a universal application of the Golden Rule, a challenge to existing anthropocentric hierarchies and ethics. The book built on arguments Moore first made in Better-World Philosophy, published in 1899, and was followed by The New Ethics in 1907. The Universal Kinship was endorsed by a number of contemporary figures including Henry S. Salt, Mark Twain and Jack London, Eugene V. Debs and Mona Caird.

The Universal Kinship
First edition cover
AuthorJ. Howard Moore
LanguageEnglish
SeriesInternational Library of Social Science
SubjectAnimal rights, ethics, evolution
PublisherCharles H. Kerr & Co.
Publication date
1906 (reissued edition, 1916; reissued edition, 1992)
Publication placeUnited States
Media typePrint
Pages329
OCLC3704446

Background

edit
 
Moore, c. 1899

J. Howard Moore was a pioneering advocate for animal rights. His writings were significantly shaped by his scientific background and moral philosophy. Moore was also connected to the broader humanitarian movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which aimed to improve the treatment of both animals and humans.[1]

The book was one of several works by Moore, including Better-World Philosophy (1899) and The New Ethics (1907). Together, these writings promoted his belief in the interconnectedness of all life and the necessity of a moral evolution toward a more compassionate world.[1]

Summary

edit

The book is split into three parts, each exploring and evidencing the sources of kinship between humans and nonhuman animals—the physical, psychical and ethical. To support his claims, Moore drew "extensively upon the fields of geology, paleontology, and biology, together with the works of evolutionary scientists such as Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel, Romanes, and Lubbock."[2]

The Physical Kinship

edit

This section focuses on the biological connections between humans and other animals. Moore discusses how humans are not fundamentally different from other animals but are part of a continuum within the animal kingdom. He begins by highlighting that humans are indeed animals, sharing a common ancestry with all living creatures.

Moore then delves into the classification of humans as vertebrates and mammals, pointing out shared characteristics such as internal skeletons, four-chambered hearts, and the ability to nourish offspring with milk. Moore emphasizes the close relationship between humans and other primates, particularly the anthropoid apes, noting similarities in anatomy, behavior, and evolutionary history. He uses this to argue against the idea of an unbridgeable gulf between humans and other species. Moore concludes with a discussion on homology, the idea that similarities among species are not coincidental but rather evidence of common ancestry and evolutionary processes.

The Psychical Kinship

edit

The second section delves into the mental and emotional similarities between humans and nonhuman animals. Moore challenges the traditional view that places human consciousness and mental abilities on a unique pedestal, arguing that many cognitive and emotional capacities, such as problem-solving, memory, emotions, and social behaviors, are also present in varying degrees across the animal kingdom.

He begins by exploring the conflict between science and tradition, highlighting how religious and cultural beliefs have long promoted the idea of humans possessing a unique, divinely granted soul or consciousness. This idea has led to a perceived gulf between humans and other animals. However, scientific advancements in biology, psychology, and ethology have increasingly shown that many animals exhibit behaviors and cognitive processes similar to those of humans.

In providing evidence of psychical evolution, Moore argues that mental faculties have evolved in animals just as physical traits have, with different species demonstrating abilities like problem-solving, social structures, and communication skills. By presenting these parallels, Moore suggests that the minds of humans and animals are not fundamentally different but vary in complexity, challenging the notion of human exceptionalism in mental and emotional realms.

The Ethical Kinship

edit

The final section addresses the moral implications of the relationship between humans and other animals, arguing for a more inclusive ethical perspective that extends beyond humanity. Moore begins by tracing the evolution of human ethics, starting with the primal behaviors of early humans who, like other animals, acted primarily out of self-interest and survival instincts. As human societies developed, so did concepts of morality and ethics, gradually incorporating notions of altruism and compassion.

However, Moore critiques the persistence of anthropocentric ethics, which place human interests above all other forms of life, often justifying the exploitation and mistreatment of animals. He emphasizes that this mindset contradicts the principles found in the Golden Rule, which encourages treating others as one would like to be treated. Moore argues that if this rule is to be applied consistently, it should extend beyond the human species to include all sentient beings.

In advocating for the doctrine of Universal Kinship, Moore calls for a reevaluation of our ethical principles, urging humans to acknowledge their moral responsibilities toward other creatures. This includes considering the impact of human actions on animals and extending compassion and justice to them. By emphasizing our shared kinship with all life forms, Moore argues for an ethical framework that recognizes the inherent worth of every living being. He urges a shift towards more compassionate and humane treatment of animals, in alignment with the broader application of the Golden Rule.

Reception

edit
 
1906 newspaper article about Moore and The Universal Kinship

The Universal Kinship was well-received by several contemporary figures. The English writer Henry S. Salt, Moore's friend and fellow animal rights advocate, later described the book, in his autobiography, as "the best ever written in the humanitarian cause".[3] Upon the book's publication in the United Kingdom, Salt widely publicized it using his Humanitarian League network.[2] The book received positive reviews in The Daily Telegraph, the Evening Standard, The Clarion, and Reynold's News.[4]

American socialist Eugene V. Debs declared that "[i]t is impossible for me to express my appreciation of your masterly work. It is simply great, and every socialist and student of sociology should read it."[5] Debs was inspired by the book to publish an article "Man and Mule", reflecting on the relationship between mules and humans.[6]

Moore sent a personal copy of the book to the American writer Mark Twain, who replied:[7]

The book has furnished me several days of deep pleasure and satisfaction; it has compelled my gratitude at the same time, since it saves me the labor of stating my own long-cherished opinions and reflections and resentments by doing it lucidly and fervently and irascibly for me.

In an endorsement, the American writer Jack London stated:[8]

Mr. Moore has a broad grasp and shows masterly knowledge of the subject. And withal the interest never flags. The book reads like a novel. One is constantly keyed up and expectant. Mr. Moore is to be congratulated upon the magnificent way in which he has made alive the dull, heavy processes of the big books. And, then, there is his style. He uses splendid virile English and shows a fine appreciation of the values of words. He uses always the right word.

In his copy, London marked the passage "All beings are ends; no creatures are means. All beings have not equal rights, neither have all men; but all have rights."[9]

English feminist and writer Mona Caird, was so deeply moved by the book that she wrote Moore a personal letter, declaring:[10]

It leaves me in a glow of enthusiasm and hope. It seems like the embodiment of years of almost despairing effort and pain of all of us who have felt these things. That which we have been thinking and feeling—some in one direction and some in another, some in fuller understanding and breadth, others in little flashes of insight here and there—all seems gathered together, expressed, and given form and color and life in your wonderful book.

American socialist Julius Wayland endorsed the book, describing the book as "not exactly socialism", but that it would open up a new world for its readers and that the book was a "scientific education within itself."[11]

Criticism

edit

The National Anti-Vivisection Society approved of Moore’s illustration of "the ethical kinship" between humans and animals but objected to the idea that evolution could explain the evolution of human mental capacity. The RSPCA felt that while Moore's arguments were well supported, they took exception with his Darwinian perspective, stating that "there is much in it that cannot be agreed with".[12]

G. M. A.'s review in The American Naturalist, stated: "While agreeing with the author that 'the art of being kind' is in sore need of cultivation among us, one cannot but be amused at the mixture of fact and error, observation and travelers' tales, seriousness of statement and straining after absurd expressions, that characterizes this not unreadable book."[13] J. R. Stanton in American Anthropologist was also critical, stating "[i]ts failing, as in the case of so many works of similar nature, is that in sweeping away impassable gulfs it ignores real differences."[14]

Legacy

edit

In the book, Moore criticizes the anthropocentrism of human beings: "We think of our acts toward non-human peoples [...] entirely from the human point of view. We never take the time to put ourselves in the places of our victims."[15]: 304  He also asserts that arrogance prevents humans from recognizing their kinship with nonhuman animals and grievously mistreating them, likening their "provincialist" attitude to chauvinism and racism:[15]: 276 

The denial by human animals of ethical relations to the rest of the animal world is a phenomenon not differing either in character or cause from the denial of ethical relations by a tribe, people, or race of human beings to the rest of the human world.

These arguments have been described by contemporary scholars as antecedents of the concept of speciesism,[16][17] which was coined as a term 63 years later by Richard D. Ryder.[18]

Publication history

edit
 
Advertisement for Moore's works

The book's publisher, Charles H. Kerr & Co., included the book in its International Library of Social Science series, which was described as "positively indispensable to the student of socialism."[19] In 1906, the same year as the book's original publication, The Whole World Kin, a condensed version of the book was published in London by George Bell & Sons.[20]: 127  They also published an unabridged version of the book,[21] as did the Humanitarian League.[22]

In the same year, Felix Ortt produced a Dutch translation of the book.[23] In 1908, Ōsugi Sakae and Sakai Toshihiko translated the book into Japanese.[24]

The book was out-of-print for several years, but was reissued by Charles H. Kerr & Co., in 1916, due to increased demand.[25]

It was reissued by Centaur Press in 1992, edited by animal rights philosopher Charles R. Magel, with added appendices, including "letters from Moore to Salt, a biographical essay and the eulogy Clarence Darrow delivered at Moore's funeral."[26]

See also

edit

References

edit
  1. ^ a b Davey, Donna L. (2009). "J. Howard Moore". In Furey, Hester Lee (ed.). Dictionary of Literary Biography. American Radical and Reform Writers: Second Series. Vol. 345. Farmington Hills, Michigan: Gale. ISBN 978-0-7876-8163-0. OCLC 241304990 – via Internet Archive.
  2. ^ a b Li, Chien-hui (2017). Mobilizing Traditions in the First Wave of the British Animal Defense Movement. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 250–252. ISBN 9781137526519.
  3. ^ "J. Howard Moore". Henry S. Salt Society. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  4. ^ "The Universal Kinship". The Humane Review: 3. April 1906.
  5. ^ "Publishers' Department" (PDF). The International Socialist Review. 7: 509. February 1, 1907.
  6. ^ Debs, Eugene V. (1906-08-04). "Man and Mule" (PDF). The Chicago Socialist. 6 (387): 2.
  7. ^ Paine, Albert Bigelow (2018). Mark Twain: A Biography: Volume 2: 1886 - 1910. Jazzybee Verlag. pp. 216–217. ISBN 9783849672614.
  8. ^ London, Jack (1907). "Books on Socialism Modern Science, etc.". In Simons, Algie Martin (ed.). Class struggles in America (3rd ed.). Chicago: C. H. Kerr & Co. p. 10.
  9. ^ Bruni, John (2014-03-15). Scientific Americans: The Making of Popular Science and Evolution in Early-Twentieth-Century U.S. Literature and Culture. University of Wales Press. p. 90. ISBN 9781783160181.
  10. ^ Caird, Mona (1900). "A Letter from Mona Caird". In Simons, Algie Martin (ed.). International Socialist Review. Vol. 7. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Co. p. 63.
  11. ^ "London and Wayland Endorse 'The Universal Kinship'". Appeal to Reason. 1906-09-08. p. 3. Retrieved 2021-11-08.
  12. ^ "Books of the Month". The Animal World: 122. May 1906.
  13. ^ A., G. M. (1906). "The Universal Kinship". The American Naturalist. 40 (479): 806. doi:10.1086/278684. ISSN 0003-0147. JSTOR 2455038.
  14. ^ Swanton, J. R. (1906). "Review of The Universal Kinship". American Anthropologist. 8 (4): 706. doi:10.1525/aa.1906.8.4.02a00140. ISSN 0002-7294. JSTOR 659194.
  15. ^ a b Moore, J. Howard (1906). The Universal Kinship. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Co.
  16. ^ Walters, Kerry S.; Portmess, Lisa, eds. (1999). Ethical Vegetarianism: From Pythagoras to Peter Singer. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. p. 127. ISBN 9780791440438.
  17. ^ Engel, Mylan; Jenni, Kathie (2010). The Philosophy of Animal Rights. Lantern Books. p. 10. ISBN 978-1-59056-263-5.
  18. ^ Ryder, Richard D. (2009). "Speciesism". In Bekoff, Marc (ed.). Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. p. 527. ISBN 9780313352560.
  19. ^ "The International Library of Social Science" (PDF). International Socialist Review. Vol. 7, no. 1. July 1906. p. 63. Retrieved 2021-11-08.
  20. ^ Jarvis, Gary K. (May 2009). The Road Not Taken: Humanitarian Reform and the Origins of Animal Rights in Britain and the United States, 1883-1919 (PhD thesis). The University of Iowa. OCLC 760887727.
  21. ^ Moore, J. Howard (1906). The Universal Kinship. London: George Bell & Sons.
  22. ^ Moore, J. Howard (1906). The Universal Kinship. London: Humanitarian League.
  23. ^ Moore, John Howard (1906). De universeele verwantschap: een uiteenzetting van de evolutieleer van dier en mensch (in Dutch). Translated by Ortt, Felix. 's-Gravenhage: Vereeniging Vrede. OCLC 65656538.
  24. ^ Moore, J. Howard (1908). Banbutsu no dōkon ichizoku. Heimin kagaku (in Japanese). Vol. 6. Translated by Ōsugi, Sakae; Sakai, Toshihiko. Tokyo: Yūrakusha. OCLC 70795108.
  25. ^ "The Universal Kinship" (PDF). International Socialist Review. 16 (8): 447. February 1916 – via Marxists Internet Archive.
  26. ^ Unti, Bernard (2014). ""Peace on earth among the orders of creation": Vegetarian Ethics in the United States Before World War I". In Helstosky, Carol (ed.). The Routledge History of Food. Abingdon: Routledge. p. 198. doi:10.4324/9781315753454. ISBN 9781315753454.
edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Universal_Kinship&oldid=1246856381"