Emotion, Stupidity, and Animal Abuse Laws
For a societal explanation of animal abuse laws, follow this unassailable line of logic:
-
Animals have no fractional human value in the eye of the law.
-
Therefore, it is not illegal to kill animals. Animals are killed routinely and without remorse for food and other products.
-
However, it is popularly repugnant to kill a domesticated animal because humans form emotional bonds with domesticated animals.
-
And, people that are capable of killing an animal with which they share an emotional bond are a potential threat to society at large.
-
Therefore, animal abuse laws exist to protect society from people who kill domesticated animals - not to protect the animals themselves.
-
Animal abuse laws can only achieve their goal if the criminal indeed violates an emotional bond with the animal.
-
Therefore, animal abuse laws will be unjustly enforced against all people who do not form western stereotypical emotional bonds with domesticated animals because those people are not a higher danger to the general public.
Let’s apply this logic to Michael Vick, or dog fighting in general:
-
Dogs have no fractional human value in the eye of the law.
-
It is repugnant to abuse a dog because we form emotional bonds with them.
-
If Vick killed a dog that he had an emotional bond with, he is a potential threat to society at large.
-
There is no evidence that Vick perceived the dogs as anything more than property to be disposed, therefore, the law is unjustly enforced.
This fourth point is very important. There are many cultures worldwide and subcultures here in the US that simply do not hold a westernized view of dogs. I mean, seriously, the entire country of Vietnam is filled with criminals if we think that dogs are somehow a sacred animal that cannot be abused or killed. Furthermore, if you grow up on “the streets,” where dogs are routinely held in low regard, you may not hold the same emotional esteem for them. Are you immoral for not doing so? Should we legislate that morality into you if you lack it?
Let’s again apply the logic to cock fighting:
-
Roosters have no fractional human value in the eye of the law.
-
Roosters are not domesticated animals, we do not stereotypically form emotional bonds with them.
-
A person who kills a rooster is not a threat to society at large.
-
Cock fighting is still illegal because it’s inevitably accompanied by gambling - a “moral hazard.”
Here’s an example of an animal abuse law that simply doesn’t make sense in the traditional framework - you can kill hundreds of thousands of them, just don’t fight them. If you look at history you’ll find that it was outlawed entirely to enforce moral values against gambling - or just to single out Hispanics. It’s myopic to suggest that Mexico is filled with a bunch of criminals because it’s culturally acceptable to fight chickens there. You also need to lighten up if you think that the Spanish should be locked up for bull-fighting, or the Philippino for spider fighting. I know inside myself that it is wrong to intentionally hurt a dog, though I cannot say the same for rats or cattle (India may disagree with me), and I’m not so arrogant as to consider others inferior to me on this point.
In the end, I believe animal abuse laws strive toward an improper goal. If your rights end where my rights begin, how does your disposal of your own property affect me? We identify animal abuse as precursor behavior to something worse, but it’s essentially a thought crime - one that ignores the variety of viewpoints here in the US. There are many behaviors that can indicate a propensity to do something illegal in the future, but it doesn’t mean that people should go to prison for crime yet committed.
The proper punishment for animal abuse is the public humiliation already attendant.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Related Posts
- Fred Thompson Pulls an Al Sharpton
- We All Scream for Sexual Predators
- Reject Crime Registries
- Oklahoma Wins HitHimAgain Lamest License Plate Award
- Romney’s Ignominious Internet Ignorance
Fascinating post.
I think the premise is faulty for application of law.
Cruelty to animals is forbidden under the Seven Noachide Laws. It basically prohibits severing limbs and bleeding live animals for broth (preservation) according to Genesis 9 and Acts 15:20. However The Sanhedrin interpretes administration to mean basically that no animal should suffer more than a quick death for food and resources.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Animal abuse laws not being those of any religious authority - only governmental authority - I believe the premise to be correct.