I deliberately did not talk about Michael Vick's race because that is a side issue to me. I think the real argument will get lost if race comes into this.
I really think this is about the animal that was involved. I suggest this because I've never heard of someone receiving this amount of jail for financing, supporting or betting on cockfighting. Also, the treatment of racehorses (except for the really special breeds) would make most people sick; yet financing that and destroying the horse after it doesn't produce anymore is commonplace.
What makes dogs so damn special?
I know I've probably just made my dear animal-rights readers mad, but I really don't care. I just want an explanation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
What makes dogs so special? Nothing except cultural whim, which is why Michael Vick’s conviction is unfair, in my opinion.
If we are to honor cultural diversity, then we must accept that the animals we choose to exclude from our compassion may be different than the ones other people choose, like these http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/dog.html .
My answer.
CC
Chalicechick’s photo does a good job of answering the question, “Why is (was) this dog special to the apparently deceased person underneath the plastic?”
I don’t think it answers the broader question of why dogs as a species are more deserving of moral consideration than other species.
Dogs, pigs, chickens, cats, cows; they’re all living, breathing sentient beings who know joy and suffering, physical and emotional; who protect their young, who mourn the death of their companions.
In suffering, all these animals are equal, including those whose bodies are tortuously confined and ripped apart for a human taste preference.
But we don't know how the person under the plastic felt about the dog.
We do get an idea of how the dog felt about the person, though.
And that's my point.
Companion animals are companions for a reason. They show more human qualities and people identify with them more. The animals we love the most reflect back humanity's finer characteristics. Pretty much any animal can feel pain or get depressed when an animal nearby dies. But you don't hear about chickens and cows racing into burning buildings to save their masters.
Also, is it reasonable to assume that a kid who sets an anthill on fire and kills 10,000 ants is just being a curious kid, while a kid who sets the family dog on fire and kills one dog is a serial-killer in the making?
Dunno. But the FBI knows something about serial killers, and that distinction is important to them.
And for a final point, some people do not see a distinction between killing an animal so it can be eaten and forcing two animals to tear each other up because they think it is fun.
Fair enough, but some people do make a distinction there. I think that if the story had been "Micheal Vick shot a dog and ate it for dinner," it wouldn't have done much for his popularity, but he wouldn't have gotten nearly the reaction he did.
CC
“How much do others like me?” is not a legitimate test for moral consideration of them or of their interest to avoid my abuse.
“What are others doing to us?” is a legitimate question to guide our actions, but the beings that humans brutalize for a taste treat are innocents.
CC, I think your point about the FBI is a good one. A person who terribly mistreats a dog probably is more likely to become a serial killer than one who doesn’t. The perpetrator of either act is likely a sociopath, since both are so far outside cultural acceptance.
Today a serial rapist is no doubt more likely than the average person to become a serial killer too, at least in our culture. But many slaveholders in the antebellum South, who were often upstanding, law-abiding, model citizens of their communities, and who routinely raped their female property, would have been no more likely to be murderers than the next person. The white culture did not overtly condone these rapes, but their degree of disdain was muted, closer to your example today of the boy who burns an anthill.
What I appreciate about Unitarian Universalism is its faith in knowledge and reason to guide us to a more compassionate world. We can’t always count on tradition to do that.
Well, I didn't say that people liking dogs and cats more and thus being more concerned for their welfare was necessarily rational, More to the point, the Real Anonymous did not ask "what is the legitimate test for moral consideration that people use to justify abuse of some animals and not others."
The actual question was, "What makes dogs so damn special?"
My point was that dogs sometimes remind us of the best in ourselves with their loving, courageous personalites is what is so special about them.
And for what it's worth Here's an article about a guy convicted of cockfighting in Arizona. He was charged with less than Vick was and could get up to 2years in prison.
My guess is Vick's celebrity didn't have much of an impact. Celebrites usually get away with more that regular folks and have less jail time.
I didn't make an argument based in tradition, so I don't know where the stuff about that comes from.
CC
Post a Comment