download PDF version: 41.2MB - Global Grey

334
EOSICRUCIAN PHILOSOPHY
QUESTION No. 167.
Are animals amenable to tlie law of causation?.
Answer: No, not in the sense of being 'morally respon-
out a window from
sible. Of course, if an animal jumps
a high building, that as a cause will produce lesions accord-
ing to the nature of the fall it sustains, just as when a
human being jumps out of the window. But in the case
of the animal there is only the physical effect shown by the
hurt it suffers, while the man who deliberately commits
such an act not only sustains certain lesions, but he is also
morally responsible for the instrument which he possesses,
and the law of causation brings to him an adequate moral
retribution of such a nature that he will learn to take care
of his instrument and not seek to destroy it by such acts
in the future.
The reason why the animal has no moral responsibility
is that it has no reasoning power, but ordinarily acts by
direction of the group spirit which we call instinct, and it
may
be that instinct has instilled a fear into the animal
which causes it to commit an act resulting in injury to
its body. Before anyone can be morally responsible to the
law of causation, he must have a certain free will and choice,
also the power of reasoning properly, and, therefore, we
reiterate that as animals are devoid of these attributes,
they are not at all amenable morally to the law of causation.