Friendship with Companion Animals – Illusion or Reality? Thomistic Reflection

In philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Consequential Thomism we do not find any remarks concerning reciprocal references between man and animals. The entire attention is focused on mutual relations between people and God. This, to some extent, is understandable. Interpersonal references influence human happiness in the most significant way. Man would not be able to exist without other people, to build a family, work, enjoy life. But genuine reality is something more than personal beings. There are other beings, not only man, whose life and wellbeing influence human life. From man’s status as a reasonable being and ability to show empathy follows obligation to take care of the nature. He is supposed to care for animals not only with regard to his own existential situation and that of future generations. As Aristotle claims, useful love (friendship) is usually short-term and is not a genuine love. It does not include these domains in which there is no possibility for human to achieve benefits. Even more clear it is visible in love (friendship) for the sake of pleasantness which is the most fragile of all domains of love. Since it arises most frequently among young people this love is prone to changes as the moods are. Animals deserve human’s care and love regardless how much benefits or pleasure they supply to man. They deserve it because their ontic structure is real, good and beautiful. Love is a gift which we freely give to the other beings. It is a skill. Especially beautiful is love caritas which is expressed by selfless in giving ourselves without expecting anything in return. Selfless love is taught by these beings which need protection and care because they are not able to care for themselves. Among them, in majority, are sick and disabled persons, children and also animals. Analysis of the texts of St. Thomas and M. Gogacz shows that speaking about the relations of love and animals is not an absurd. Both of them offer suggestions that enable to understand this relation better. For Aquinas it is connaturalitas, for Gogacz it is extended meaning of caritas. Thus, none of these two philosophers would agree to admit animals a status of persons. What follows is that none of them would agree to denote a human-animal relation a friendship. Animals do not poses the intellect and will in their ontic structure and hence they are not able to experience any domain of spiritual love. They may – as it seems – build a relation of connaturalitas, experience the emotion of love, con-constitute a relation caritas, which on their part is a “steady positive affective attitude”. This “steady positive affective attitude” is something more than the feeling of love and is much more of steadiness. It is a real relation which, on the part of animal, is a steady attitude to love and affection (attachment). On the part of man it has a shape of love caritas. This relation does not link an animal with each man, not even with people known and liked. It links an animal with the closest carer, the one who is accepted by animal as its carer. This bond is particular, unique, reciprocally adaptive. Loss of a caregiver causes pain to animal. Sometimes animals get sick and even pass away too soon when separated from their caregiver. Carers also painfully experience separation when they lose animal in the result of its illness, accident or elderly age. It shows that a man-animal relation is something crucial. It contributes to the wellbeing of animal and happiness of man. It is important hence for man not to ascribe human feelings, emotions, strives and intentions to animals. Even more significant issue is to avoid making a mistake in adopting improper measure for love – to love animals more than people. Caritas with regard to animal cannot be considered the same caritas as the one related to other man. Such as distinctive is the power of amor towards God than towards human, that analogously should the power of love towards human be distinctive from love towards animal. Moreover, this love should be communicated in another way. Turning again to Gogacz’s thought we may conclude that man should love God proportionate to God’s nature, man proportionate to man’s nature and – let us add – love animal proportionate to animal’s nature.