|
Willful or wanton infliction of pain, suffering, or death upon an animal or the intentional or malicious neglect of an animal. Perhaps the world's first anticruelty law, which addressed the treatment of domesticated animals, was included in the legal code of the Massachusetts Bay Colony (1641); similar legislation was passed in Britain in 1822. The world's first animal welfare society, the Society for the Protection of Animals, was established in England in 1824; the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was chartered in 1866. In varying degrees, cruelty to animals is illegal in most countries, and interest in endangered species gave further impetus to the anticruelty movement in the late 20th century. Reflecting such interest, many laws have been passed, though they are seldom enforced unless public pressure is brought to bear.
Cruelty to animals refers to treatment or standards of care that cause unwarranted or unnecessary suffering or harm to animals. Standards of both animal cruelty legislation, and enforcement, may vary between different places from non-existent through to comprehensive, and the acts and conditions which are deemed "cruel" also vary. Opinions are divided whether practices such as factory farming, fur farming and animal testing of medical procedures and consumer products pose a major moral issue.
Cases in which cruelty to animals is due to a deliberate wish to be cruel (as opposed to neglect), are known as zoosadism, and have been repeatedly linked via research with abuse and cruelty to people (including the more sensationalist examples of torture and killing). In such extreme cases cruelty to animals may also have occurred, as a "rehearsal" or as an aspect of development. However this should be viewed in perspective; not all cruelty is sadism, nor are all persons who are cruel to animals necessarily going to be abusive towards people.
Animal Rights
The claim that animals have rights reflects a belief that (at least some) animals are worthy of the protection and security afforded by a set of politically enforced rights. This belief may be grounded in utilitarianism, on the grounds that (a) animals can feel pleasure and suffer pain, (b) the world is a better place if animals do not suffer unnecessarily, and (c) such unnecessary suffering is best avoided through the invocation of rights. It may also be grounded in a deontological argument that all ‘subjects of a life’ have a basic moral right to be treated with respect. Amongst animal rights theorists the first approach is exemplified in the work of Peter Singer and the second in that of Tom Regan.
The claim for equal rights is not a claim for equal treatment. Whilst both animals and humans can be said to have an interest in not being tortured, cows are not generally thought to have an interest in a right to vote. Thus the claim is for rights appropriate to the capacities of a species. Problems with animal rights are raised by those who believe that rights must be accompanied by duties—how can animals be rights bearers when they can never be under moral obligation? Environmentalists who believe that a serious moral belief in animal rights would see humans interfering in natural processes of predation and disease have also raised objections. (See also anthropocentrism and ecocentrism.) — Mathew Humphrey
|
|
