I don’t think that everyone who kicks a pet to death is going to become a serial killer, but I do think that it is probably a safe bet that the kind of person who would do such a thing is severely lacking in empathy for other living things and probably has problems controlling his anger.
Then there’s this from the article:
That boy sounds traumatized. Traumatizing your kids with your violent outbursts is not a sign of a good dad. This guy sounds like an abusive and scary person.
Hell yeah, I think these kids would be better off having “dear old dad” locked up in jail. We’re not locking him up for throwing the football around the yard with his kids. We’re locking him up for being an abusive, violent person. You don’t have to actually physically assault someone to be abusive and harmful to them. There are plenty of stories on this message board of people who hate their fathers for being emotionally abusive. I even recall someone on here posting about their own abusive father killing the family pet in front of the poster as a form of psychological torture.
For humans, the worst thing you can do is take someone’s life. Battery is bad, but not nearly as bad.
With animals, the reverse is true. Making them suffer is actually worse than taking their life.
Why? Is an animal’s life not worth something?
The only logical explanation I can come up with is that the answer to this, for most people, is no. Or at least, the animal’s life is worth less than the relatively small amount of meat/fur we get from it.
Now, once people have accepted that an animal’s life is next to worthless, they try to assuage their guilt by minimising its suffering. Again, something I go along with. But there is nothing noble about this. I see it as something akin to the mafia thug who has a soft spot and doesn’t like kneecapping people, but has no problem shooting them.
I don’t feel we owe animals anything. They are competing with us in the evolutionary race; however, as it is basically no contest, we can afford to treat animals with altruism. However, someone who will not hurt an animal, because it makes them feel bad, but has no objection to the meat industry, does not, as far as I’m concerned, have the moral high ground to criricize someone who makes no attempt to care about animals. (I fall into this category.)
The vegan types may be more consistent with their views, but I disagree with them on philosophical grounds - I see no reason we should refrain from being the carnivores we are so another species can benefit.
What gets to me is when people try and force their beliefs about animals onto others, and make moral judgements on others based on their own (inconsistent) beliefs. I personally don’t see anything morally wrong with using animals for our entertainment - I think our moral obligations extend to humans only, and while it would be nice if everyone was kind to animals, I don’t think they are necessarily bad people if they aren’t. I certainly don’t think violence to animals is equatable to violence to humans, as a social contract with clear boundaries exists with humans, while no such contract exists with animals, and the boundaries of acceptable behaviour are clear as mud. Killing ok, but suffering not? Doesn’t make much sense to me.
*For the record, I also see no reason people should refrain from torture in war scenarios; it’s pretty much the same contradiction.
9 years in prison will run about $350K in my state. And that’s just incarceration costs. Throw in legal costs, plus possible taxpayer subsidies for any dependent family members while he’s not earning wages, and it may approach/exceed half a million dollars.
Suffering is everything. If I were at the whim of some eternal overlord and have the choice of dying at age 80 having been tortured for the previous 63 years, or someone sneaking up to me on my 80th Birthday and putting a bullet in my head after a happy life, guess what I’d choose? what would anyone choose?
I see a quick and painless death as a kindness and the reduction of suffering as a moral duty.