Animal Cruelty - Why should we care?

[Frozenwolf150]

First, my own background. I'm a cat lover. I work at an animal rescue. I've been taking care of cats for 20 years now and I can't imagine my life without them. I wouldn't want anything bad to happen to them, and if anyone were to ever hurt them, I would want that individual to be harshly punished.

I'm not ethically opposed to raising farm animals for the purpose of eating meat, so long as they are treated humanely while they are alive. After all, the cats I care for are obligate carnivores, so I'd be a hypocrite if I were against raising other animals for meat. Unfortunately, it's hard to find stores that still sell free range meat. I'm currently looking into CSA because I've heard it's better for the environment, so I'll have to see how that pans out.

I've been following a number of animal cruelty cases over the past year that our rescue has been involved in, the details of which I may share later. It's appalling how some people feel they can abuse, torture, and neglect their animals and then treat them like they're someone else's problem. These animals depend on us for food, shelter, and safety, and the last thing we should do is betray their trust.

Yet the reason I'm asking this question is because, for the life of me, I find myself unable to articulate an objective moral or philosophical argument as to why I as an individual, or why we as a society, should care about animal cruelty as an issue.

I used to argue that there are studies that have been done showing a link between cruelty towards animals and cruelty towards humans. This is how several notorious serial killers, like Jeffrey Dahmer, got their start. However, only a correlation has been proven, and correlation is not the same as causation. There are animal abusers who do not grow up to be serial killers, and there are serial killers who never abused animals growing up. Perhaps the same psychological cause is behind both behaviors in households where abuse takes place, but I haven't been able to find sufficient evidence on this.

I could argue that animals are living, breathing, thinking beings, who provide us with companionship and warmth. They have the same feelings we do. They feel pain like we do. They give us so much and ask for so little in return. However, this is an emotional appeal, not an objective argument, and not everyone is going to feel the same way.

I could say that our domestic animals co-evolved with us as human civilization grew up. Our very survival came to depend on them. The livestock animals provide us with food and clothing. The animals we consider pets serve as companions, guards, hunters, and pest control. We made them who they are, and now they can't survive without us, therefore it's our responsibility as a species to make sure we take good care of them. But again, this is subjective.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Why should anyone care about animal cruelty? What does it matter if a livestock animal is trapped in a tiny cell, wading in its own filth its entire life? It's just going to die anyway. It's out of sight and out of mind, so why should I care? And what does it matter if a cat or dog is beaten, neglected, or starved? It's just a stupid pet. It's not the same as treating a human the same way, and it doesn't contribute to human suffering if you torture an animal.

So could someone with more experience than I come up with a well-reasoned, objective argument as to why animal cruelty is wrong?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I could argue that animals are living, breathing, thinking beings, who provide us with companionship and warmth. They have the same feelings we do. They feel pain like we do. They give us so much and ask for so little in return. However, this is an emotional appeal, not an objective argument, and not everyone is going to feel the same way.

...

So could someone with more experience than I come up with a well-reasoned, objective argument as to why animal cruelty is wrong?

I have a feeling we are going to run into the objective/subjective morality division. I generally favour objective morality, but that is the minority opinion IME.

The link to human-human cruelty is an old one, but not a good one. The argument about dependency is dodgy because you are holding "us" and "them" accountable based on species membership. I certainly didn't domesticate any animals. Why am I responsible for something other humans did in the past?

I'm not ethically opposed to raising farm animals for the purpose of eating meat, so long as they are treated humanely while they are alive. After all, the cats I care for are obligate carnivores, so I'd be a hypocrite if I were against raising other animals for meat.

You used the key word here, but it doesn't look like you recognise it.

"It is wrong to cause unnecessary harm, pain, suffering, or death."

This is a moral principle everyone (I've met) agrees upon. I don't want to get into the metaethics of how it is reached because there is no hope of agreement down that rabbithole. The problem is that people add confusion based on morally irrelevant criteria (kinship, race, sex, species, capacity for language, intelligence) or confusion about necessity (war, security, desire).

To put it another way, Michael Vick and the person eating turkey this holiday are not morally dissimilar. Both engaged in causing unnecessary suffering and death for the sake of pleasure. Obligate carnivores are a separate and morally distinct case.

 

[PhantomWolf]

When we are talking farming, the more fear and pain an animal suffers, the worse it's meat is, so treating them well means that they will produce better meat.

Animals that we farm to produce by products (eggs, wool, milk) also tend to do so better when not stressed and hurting.

A person that enjoys harming Companions animals often will graduate to harming people.

Seems like 3 good reasons to me.

 

[dirtywick]

I have to add to that even if an individual doesn't care a certain segment of the population does and being happy is an important part of a well functioning society.

 

[Loss Leader]

I would say that the only moral reason to treat animals well is that it helps condition the mind to treat other people well.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I would say that the only moral reason to treat animals well is that it helps condition the mind to treat others well.

And a propensity for cruelty to small animals and pets is one of the red flags for serial killers. They have no empathy for the animals, and this grows into the same attitude toward other humans. I've known one such person personally.

 

[Loss Leader]

And a propensity for cruelty to small animals and pets is one of the red flags for serial killers. They have no empathy for the animals, and this grows into the same attitude toward other humans. I've known one such person personally.

But you have that backwards. Psychopaths often start out torturing animals. However, the mistreatment of animals does not turn one into a psychopath. If it did, just about every hog farmer in America would be under indictment.

(My excellent source, which explains the latest research into the neuro-anatomy of psychopaths at all ages.)

 

[epepke]

Many years ago, I had a discussion on alt.atheism.moderated, with an atheist who was a moral vegetarian. He said the most interesting thing I have ever heard on the subject:

"I don't eat animals, not because of what it would do to the animals, but because of what it would do to me."

There's an answer in there.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

However, the mistreatment of animals does not turn one into a psychopath.

I'm sorry, but where did I say that?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Many years ago, I had a discussion on alt.atheism.moderated, with an atheist who was a moral vegetarian. He said the most interesting thing I have ever heard on the subject:

"I don't eat animals, not because of what it would do to the animals, but because of what it would do to me."

There's an answer in there.

We are natural omnivores. I'm fine with that.

 

[angrysoba]

And a propensity for cruelty to small animals and pets is one of the red flags for serial killers. They have no empathy for the animals, and this grows into the same attitude toward other humans. I've known one such person personally.

But you have that backwards. Psychopaths often start out torturing animals. However, the mistreatment of animals does not turn one into a psychopath. If it did, just about every hog farmer in America would be under indictment.

I think this idea about animal torturers turning out to being psychopaths is a bit of a cliche and maybe a logical error.

It's probably true that a person who enjoys inflicting pain on other humans is happy to do the same to animals, but it doesn't follow from that that animal torturers grow up (or graduate) to inflicting pain on humans any more than reading J.D Salinger turns people into serial killers.* We can even think of good examples of vegetarians and animal lovers who were happy enough with the deaths of millions of humans.

* I would be more than happy if someone has evidence that contradicts me on this.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think this idea about animal torturers turning out to being psychopaths is a bit of a cliche and maybe a logical error.

It's probably true that a person who enjoys inflicting pain on other humans is happy to do the same to animals, but it doesn't follow from that that animal torturers grow up (or graduate) to inflicting pain on humans any more than reading J.D Salinger turns people into serial killers.* We can even think of good examples of vegetarians and animal lovers who were happy enough with the deaths of millions of humans.

* I would be more than happy if someone has evidence that contradicts me on this.

Steven Egger and Park Dietz were the source for my information.

 

[angrysoba]

We are natural omnivores. I'm fine with that.

But arguably we are natural rapists too. However, if we are given a persuasive moral argument for not eating meat then we have the rational capacity to not do something just because it is "natural" to do it.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But arguably we are natural rapists too. However, if we are given a persuasive moral argument for not eating meat then we have the rational capacity to not do something just because it is "natural" to do it.

I've never, ever been inclined to rape anybody. Put a nice steak in front of me and you'll need to keep your hands away from my mouth.

 

[This is The End]

This discussion has to begin with an agreement:

Mammals are conscious. They have an actively running consciousness just like another mammal: human beings.

The sophistication of that consciousness is quite provably not as advanced as the human being, just as there are obviously going to be variations between the sophistication of the consciousness between other types of mammals.

Parties that do not agree with that, especially parties that claim the only mammal with an actively running consciousness are human beings, will not even being to have a discussion about animal cruelty.

 

[This is The End]

I think this idea about animal torturers turning out to being psychopaths is a bit of a cliche and maybe a logical error.

Umm... animal torturers are psychopaths. No "turning out to be" needed. You're the one making a logical error.

 

[Loss Leader]

I'm sorry, but where did I say that?

You implied to my understanding that those who mistreat animals turn into psychopaths here:

And a propensity for cruelty to small animals and pets is one of the red flags for serial killers. They have no empathy for the animals, and this grows into the same attitude toward other humans. I've known one such person personally.

The lack of empathy for animals does not "grow into" anything. It is indicative of a lack of empathy overall. It is neither a sufficient nor necessary indication. If I misunderstood you, I'm sorry.

 

[Dessi]

I could argue that animals are living, breathing, thinking beings, who provide us with companionship and warmth. They have the same feelings we do. They feel pain like we do. They give us so much and ask for so little in return. However, this is an emotional appeal, not an objective argument, and not everyone is going to feel the same way.

Empathy and treating others the way we want to be treated are very good rules of thumb for making moral decisions. Yes, it's an "emotional appeal", but it's also a rational starting point for the straight-forward reason that, if causing others suffering is morally objectionable, it shouldn't matter whether others are members of my family / tribe / country / university. It shouldn't matter whether they are a complete stranger I just met on the bus. It shouldn't matter that they have a different skin color, or have different chromosomes, or have a lower/higher IQ, or have different interests from me. It shouldn't matter if I can cause people outside my kinship misery without negative consequence.

The last few centuries of moral progress has kicked tribalism in the arse, pretty much rejecting it wholesale as a tenable justification for causing others misery. The expanding circle moral consideration includes people who are close to me and others outside my kin circle, so kinship or closeness to me isn't really a factor in moral questions like whether it's ok to torture someone. Would it make a difference whether that someone belongs to my species or another, if they suffer?

Most people want to justify specieism along the lines "of course it's different, I am human and I prioritize the welfare of other humans". But if we accept that argument, we'd be hard-pressed not to accept "I am [white / male] and I prioritize the welfare of other [white / male] people", the exact same toxic tribalism we rejected earlier. Specieism and tribalism are two sides of the same coin. Arguments for or against specisism unavoidably carry over as arguments for or against tribalism, and vice versa.

If we accept that the expanding circle of moral consideration extends beyond the reach of my tribalistic prejudices, then, on the pain of irrationality, we must accept that it extends beyond my species as well.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Why should anyone care about animal cruelty? What does it matter if a livestock animal is trapped in a tiny cell, wading in its own filth its entire life? It's just going to die anyway. It's out of sight and out of mind, so why should I care? And what does it matter if a cat or dog is beaten, neglected, or starved? It's just a stupid pet. It's not the same as treating a human the same way, and it doesn't contribute to human suffering if you torture an animal.

I remember an interesting thread about fairtrade cocoa. One poster in particular had a "ha ha only serious" take on how people would talk about child slavery if we approached it with the same rational, compassionate arguments people use against animal rights.

 

[angrysoba]

Umm... animal torturers are psychopaths. No "turning out to be" needed. You're the one making a logical error.

Is that right? Actually, I have no idea. We would probably need to clarify what psychopathy is. I doubt that it has one agreed upon definition, but rather a cluster of traits.

But if what you say is true, are children who pull the wings and legs off insects psychopaths? How about those that perform vivisection on slightly larger animals? Or farmers that raise veal calves or produce fois gras?

 

[angrysoba]

Steven Egger and Park Dietz were the source for my information.

Do you have a link to their specific claims?