Are Animals Morally Responsible for Their Actions?

In Genesis 9:5–6, God pronounces that animals, as well as people, face the death penalty for shedding mankind’s blood. Similarly, Exodus 21:28 prescribes that an ox that gores should be killed; if it isn’t killed and gores again, the owner also faces the death penalty for keeping a known dangerous animal. In Exodus 19:11–13, there is a death penalty for man and animal alike for trespassing onto Mount Sinai. Can an animal be morally guilty of murder or of trespassing against holy boundaries?

Natural Consequences, Not Judgment of Sin

Human beings are more valuable than animals because we, not animals, are created in the image of God. And God gave us dominion over his creation. That is why it is perfectly acceptable to own and use animals to do work (though the Bible insists that a good man will care for his animals), while it is evil to rob people of their wages (Leviticus 19:13) and, even worse, to enslave people (Deuteronomy 23:15; 1 Timothy 1:9–10). The eventual abolition of the African slave trade was an objective good that was motivated by Christianity.

One implication of the image of God is moral responsibility. The fact that an animal is not in the image of God means it cannot be guilty of sin because animals were not given commands by God to obey. Animals freely mate, but there was no marriage or moral framework given to them, unlike man (Genesis 2:18–24; Deuteronomy 22). Neither can a dog be guilty of murder when it mauls a person, even though a dog that kills or even injures a person is often euthanized. In fact, one element of humans’ dominion over creation is the right to steward the animal world for our benefit, and part of that responsibility includes killing animals that harm people. The biblical lesson in Exodus 21:29 about the ox goring people is that the ox became accustomed to harming people if it went unpunished (or restrained) and would likely continue to gore. The same applies to animals that kill humans. Once they become “man-eaters” they need to be euthanized or else they will continue to pursue humans as food.1

In some cases, killing an animal may not be a judgment against the animal itself, which has no moral compass, but against its owner, who would suffer economic harm from the loss of that animal. The Israelites at Sinai, for example, had a responsibility to keep their flocks well away from the mountain. Livestock were a valuable form of property, and losing a good sheep or ox just because it was allowed to wander on the mountain would be a deterrent.

Instincts as a Good Response to the Curse of Sin

God created animals to eat plants, so originally, animals would not have killed each other or people for food. Likewise, animals would not need to fear humans, who were also prescribed a vegetarian diet.

After the curse, animals started to become carnivorous—for some animals, this might have happened quite quickly. It is also possible that wicked people before the flood began to eat meat before God gave permission to do so. If animals had no fear of human beings, then people would have been susceptible to animal predation, and animals would have been susceptible to overhunting by humans.

It is unclear whether the fear God put into animals after the flood was the first time they were afraid of humans or whether God was replacing their natural instincts after they had been cared for and perhaps acclimated to humans’ presence for a year in the ark. This would preserve animals so their populations could grow now that humans had new permission to eat meat. It would also preserve the small human population from carnivorous animals.

The Reversal of the Curse and a Future Change in People’s Relationships with Animals

While animals aren’t morally culpable, they were affected by the curse of sin that was introduced when Adam rebelled against God’s command in Eden. The prophet Isaiah presents a vision of the world when that curse is overturned:

The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fatted calf together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like an ox. The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. (Isaiah 11:6–9)

This vision makes it clear that when Jesus’ victory over sin is fully manifested, the created order itself will be restored to its pre-fall state. Even the weakest humans will be able to exercise dominion over the animal world, including creatures that pose a substantial danger to people and animals in this fallen world.

Conclusion

Animals are not morally culpable, so when they seem to be judged, it is either an extension of human dominion (animals are not allowed to kill people because they are in God’s image) or a punishment of the human owner who was responsible for controlling their animal.

However, animals were affected by the curse and will be restored to their non-carnivorous and non-threatening pre-fall status at the consummation. As such, they are part of the whole of creation that is groaning in bondage to corruption (Romans 8:19–22). Now, as to whether or not your dog really felt “guilty” after you confronted him with taking that steak off your plate when you weren't looking, only God knows, but perhaps we can surmise that God instilled a desire within some animals to be companions that want to please “their humans.”