One aspect of the discussion in another thread on the topic in the GD fascinated me, namely whether animals are entitled to be treated ethically.
Personally, despite being a vegetarian, I think that no human should be held accountable legally for inflicting pain on another non-human animal. Other than their capacity to endanger species, perhaps. I suppose it’s an example of the two wrongs fallacy, but the current law seems inconsistent. Animals are held as capable of cognition and experiencing pain when it comes to laws against bestiality and cruelty, but they are not protected from being eaten. With regard to humans, we hold that abuse and rape are heinous crimes, but murder and cannibalism are usually penalised to a harsher degree. The one somewhat plausible (secular) explanation I’ve heard for this is that it isn’t special pleading to apply different standards to our ethical codes regarding animals (and that we shouldn’t just take our own laws and apply them in microcosm to animals).
That said, I don’t really consider purchasing the flesh of an animal to consume in order to satiate a desire morally different from having sex with an animal in order to satiate a different desire. While I don’t engage in either, I don’t think either should be punished.
I don’t think these crimes are regarded as a violation of the animal’s theoretical rights. They’re regarded as a crime against the moral standards of human society. The animal is legally regarded as essentially a prop used in the commission of the crime, like a gun or burgler tools.
I think the injunction against bestiality probably stems from Leviticus (20:15). Some of our other dietary hangups probably come from there too. That’s why I stipulated reasonable secular arguments.
It’s about being humane. That is, as much as possible, measuring the intent on any suffering you had control to prevent or mitigate on an animal legally under your care, or any animal protected by the government.
It’s clear most higher mammals, birds and reptiles show signs of sentience; they can suffer just like you or I. As the dominant sentient species on this planet, and the only one sapient enough to form complex societies, civilizations and technologies, it’d not only be irresponsible, but unconscionably cruel to let these creatures be abused by humans without some sort of repercussions/consequence.
Animal suffering is, at least in certain circumstances, worse than animal death. At least, I’m more bothered by it, and I believe lots of other people agree with me, based on the fact that it’s relatively uncontroversial to euthanize a sick or injured animal rather than let it live in pain and suffering.
I agree. Even though I am an omnivore, I believe that animals (especially mammals) should be treated humanely. In other words, I don’t have as much of a problem with killing as with suffering. I would even extend that to humans to some degree. While murder is reprehensible, someone who kills another quickly is not as horrible as someone who tortures another to death.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” – Mahatma Gandhi
I don’t think there should be. I mean, obviously, it’s an exception if, say, I kill your dog, I should be punished for that, but that’s because I’ve injured you, by harming your dog. But the way I see it, animals are property. Admittedly, they’re sentient property…if you kick a dog, it’s going to suffer in a way that a table won’t if you kick it, and people get disturbed by seeing or thinking about things in pain, which is where I think the motivation for animal cruelty laws come from.
I’m upset when romantic partners cheat. Should we make adultery illegal? It’s commonly accepted it is unethical. At least adultery happens between humans.
As someone who works in an animal shelter, I can attest that some people are cruel to or neglectful of animals through sheer ignorance. We educate them and the animals no longer suffer. Other people are just mean for the sake of being mean. For them, the threat of fines and/or jail is the only thing protecting the animals.
Either way, I think we should treat animals humanely. We have appointed ourselves as their caretakers, so we are responsible for their well-being. They cannot take care of themselves; they have no “voice;” and if they defend themselves, we usually kill them.
PS-- It’s the same principle as child welfare laws.
Is there a compelling reason to change the law and permit abuse to animals? I can’t think of any. As such, I’m in favor of keeping the laws as is. I see no problem with slaughtering a pig or a cow or a chicken for food because that serves a purpose. Torturing them serves none, and as sentient beings, its just the right thing to treat them as humanely as possible. Legal bestiality serves no legitimate purpose. Why devote legislative time to legalizing these things?
Animals suffer, so it’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on them for the same reasons it’s wrong to inflict it on humans. And as a practical matter someone who is cruel to animals has a strong tendency to extend that cruelty to humans anyway.
Dead animals don’t suffer, and a cooked animal is much less likely to introduce new diseases into the human population. Now, if you could genetically engineer animals that enjoyed sex with humans and didn’t carry such diseases that would be fine; weird, but fine.
Doesn’t matter; slaves are property too, and abusing them is still wrong (enslaving them in the first place is a wrong in its own right, of course). If my wall could feel, it would be wrong to drill holes in it without a very good reason.
Emotional suffering, while painful in its own way is arguably fundamentally different than physical suffering. Especially in matters abstract (and most likely exclusive to the human experience) like love, jealousy, betrayal, deceit, contempt, etc.
I’m of the opinion that entering into a social or romantic endeavor with anyone is “enter at your own risk.” We have abuse laws where they make sense, albeit not perfect.
They certainly are, hence the difference in sentience, which we both share in the physical sense; and sapience in the emotional and intellectual sense, in which no animal has demonstrated anything close to that of humans.
Most laws largely revolve around physical torture, abuse and neglect in both people and animals. Suffering which can be backed up by evidence. How can you legislate, enforce – let alone prove – a broken heart?
Because my off the cuff guess is that if you are fucking your dog, you are a deranged individual that will do other bad stuff very soon. It’s best to get you into custody now.
Plus thousands of years of common law have proscribed bestiality. It’s upon a proponent to give an affirmative reason why the law should be changed.
Consent doesn’t feature in this discussion. One doesn’t have to seek consent from animals in other instances and stewardship is not a clause that reneges consent.
Adultery can be considered breach of contract. In which case, it would be covered under tort rather than criminal law. There are other crimes with no evidential loss: usually possession and dissemination.
Bestiality qua bestiality though.
We can survive without eating meat, but we choose to eat meat in order to satiate a taste. Those that enjoy torturing and raping animals have different, marginal tastes. Why prosecute Michael Vick?
Society says otherwise. Eating meat is a normal activity. Torturing animals is criminal. I don’t consider the difference marginal anymore than how it is legal to kill a home intruder but not legal to shoot your wife in the face.
And adultery is not a tort. It is a breach of contract which can be, in most states, only satisfied with a divorce. Lawrence leaves criminal penalties for adultery in very much doubt.
