Стагиранин, Ерешанин и не-људска жива бића

The first part of the article analyzes Aristotle's treatment of animals and the research of the authors focuses on three issues: the presence of logos in animals, if animals can act voluntarily and if animals are responsible for what they do. Stagirites' general standing point is that animals do not have beliefs, opinions, discernment, thinking, understanding and reason. By studying his volumes it has been determined, subsequently, that animals can act voluntarily. Resolution to the dilemma whether animals are responsible for what they do depends on the understanding of Aristotle's concept of responsibility. If responsibility is understood as regulating all of those activities which were undertaken on purpose i.e. voluntarily, animals can be considered responsible. On the other hand, if the scope of responsibility is limited to the moral evaluation of acts, including the activity of logos, animals will be excluded from thus understood concept of responsibility. The authors have, following in Stagirites' footsteps, concluded that since animals can have phantasia that what they do is right or wrong, they should be either rewarded or punished for their acts. The second part of the article examines the Theophrastus' work entitled On Piety which reports not only on his opposition to sacrificing animals, but also his non-acceptance, moreover, condemning the consumption of meat, i.e. the linking of these two acts while pointing out their interdependence. The most important Eresian's philosophical contribution is reflected in the thesis that animals are intrinsically related to humans, so that due to the substantive nature it is unfair to kill them. People and animals are, inter alia, interconnected by their souls. Although some living beings have more and some less perfect souls, all of them by nature have the same principles, which is evident from the resemblance of their properties, as well as from the fact that they have common primordial parents: Uranus (Heaven) and Gea (Earth). Their similarity, then, is also reflected in the aspect of desire, anger, and especially in regards to senses. Finally, contrary to Aristotle's reception of a man and his privileged status in nature, Theophrastus considered that humans and animals are also related in terms of reasoning.