Of Man and Beast

I attended a lecture today by an Animal Rights Attorney, who is against all types of use of animals (eating them, wearing them, domesticating them, keeping them in zoos or circuses, and experimenting on them). His views would be considered extreme by most, and his arguments had definite weaknesses.

He began his lecture with a hypo: Simon is walking down the street with a dog and a blow torch. When you see Simon, what is your reaction? You want to know what he is going to do. Simon tells you that he is going to torture the dog with the blow torch because he enjoys seeing dogs suffer. It helps him blow off steam. Simon is someone you know, and you know he is generally a good guy, you have no concern that this act of violence against this animal will lead to violence against people, and the dog is a stray belonging to nobody. But morally don't you still want to stop Simon? Don't you think he is wrong?

In this simple hypo, there are 2 distinct flaws that I see. 1st is the assumption that we WOULD ask Simon what he was doing. Honestly, if I saw him, I would think maybe he took his dog for a walk down to a neighbors house and borrowed a blow torch. I would not jump to the conclusion that the two thing were going to be used together! So, no, I don't think I would ask what Simon was doing. If you saw Simon walking with a small child and a blow torch would you ask what he was going to do? Probably not, people typically don't presume sick behavior on the part of others.

2nd, is the idea that it is possible for there to be no risk that violence against animals will lead to violence against humans. This is simply not a realistic expectation. We know as a society, and I know as a criminologist, that violence against animals is almost always a precursor to violence against humans. Typically, it is done by kids who are sociopathic or psychopathic, and they do it because they enjoy the power and suffering. They want to play God. And they use animals because they feel they are physically too small to use humans. However, the enjoyment doesn't go away, and as their bodies grow so do their desires. Once the have the physical power they are bored with torturing and killing animals so they move on to people. Because society is aware of this connection, on some simplistic level, it explains people's concern about torturing animals: it is their concern for humans, not animals that make them turn Simon in when they see him use a blow torch on a dog. This premise is easy to support because few people would have as extreme a reaction when they see a man in a deer stand shoot and kill a deer for sport. This is an acceptable method of killing animals, and an acceptable sport, and we know it doesn't indicate sociopathy, so we don't freak out about it. We may shake our heads in disapproval, we may demand that it be done away from our homes so that our children are not in danger, but it is extraordinarily rare that a hunter shooting a deer would evoke the same reaction as Simon burning a dog to death. The difference is not the animal, or the death that results, or the weapon used, it is the mental state the activity suggests of the doer, it is our fear for our children that changes our reactions

As I said, this speaker is against experimentation on animals. I agree with this as far as cosmetics go, but I am only alive today because of animal testing and so it is difficult for me. When I was 2 years old I had life saving surgery. Five years before that my mother saw Drs perform the same surgery on a dog, they were doing that to be sure it would be safe for humans. The dog survived the surgery, but it appears that this speaker would still object. Without the use of that dog, I would be dead. What would the consequences of that be? The most obvious is that all the things I have done in my life would not have been done. It is quite possible that I will do much good in my life. Then, there are my parents, who surely would have been devastated by the loss of their toddler, their 1st born. Would they have continued living? Would my sister have been born? Even if that dog had died, would it be worth it to save the four of us? Multiply that by all the other toddlers that have been saved by that surgery in the last 25 years. To me, it seems justified.

He also suggested that eating animals is immoral, because animals have consciousness. Does that make animals that eat other animals immoral? If animals are conscious of their actions, then predators should be capable of sympathy for their prey. And maybe they should find ways to replace the meat in their diets as humans have. Or do animals only have the ability to conceive their victimization but not their attacks? It may sound silly, but it seems to follow logically from his premise.

My point is that I realize that people use animals and treat them like property, and I realize that they are living, breathing beings and that many people even feel real love for them. But I do not think these moral lines are as easy to draw as this speaker did. I do not think that the same moral considerations apply to animals and humans. And I do believe that there is something to be said for being at the top of the food chain. Nature put us there for some reason, most likely because of our extraordinary mental capabilities. Species killing each other is a natural part of life and it existed before capitalism, democracy, and legal systems. Certainly laws in this area are needed and warranted, but some qualitative distinctions need to be made, and I wonder what this speaker would say if he had to choose between the life of his dog and the life of his son. How quickly would he be able to make a distinction in that case? I expect pretty easily, and I expect his decision would have nothing to do with its legal consequences.