Havelock
Mayor
What constitutes animal abuse?
More precisely, what should be considered criminally abusive treatment.
In a previous thread concerning Mitt Romney's transportation of the family dog, several posters scoffed at the idea that schlepping a dog from point A to point by strapping a kennel to the roof of one's car and hitting the road for hours at a time could be considered abusive. I don't want to re-fight that particular battle, so let me concede that some dogs might not mind traveling in such a manner and – presuming the weather was decent, the rest stops were sufficiently frequent, and the dog was shielded in some way from the wind – such treatment might not necessarily qualify as abuse. I don't know whether or not what Mitt did met all those qualifications. But again, that's not the point of this post.
No, the point is to try to flesh out what people here think about what is and isn't animal abuse. I'm curious because there were a couple of points made repeatedly by a few posters in the thread mentioned above and I'd like to know to what extent those are consensus views.
The first point was that to rise to the level of abuse, the treatment must involve physical harm, not merely transient discomfort, and must result in overt, persistent signs of physical or psychological trauma. (I'm paraphrasing and summarizing, but the above is my take on what was said about the absence of physical injury or lingering behavioral problems negating any allegation of abuse.)
The second point was that comparing dogs to kids for purposes of determining abuse is wrongheaded because dogs don't experience the world in the same way that a kid does and also because dogs don't have the same inherent “moral worth” as human beings. (Again, paraphrasing and summarizing...)
Right. Was that about the gist of it?
Personally, I side with those who think the definition of abuse goes a little beyond the infliction of physical injury or sustained psychological trauma. Actual laws vary, but for the sake of reference, here's a fairly typical example:
Please note that the law talks about unnecessary suffering, which I'd ague goes beyond lingering physical or psychological injury. Of course, then we're left to decide how we ought to gauge unnecessary or unjustifiable pain or suffering. To me, avoiding such suffering involves treating other beings with respect and, as much as reasonably possible, allowing them to live their lives according to their desires and their natures. It also involves not unduly privileging my own wants and needs above theirs. The devil is in the details, naturally, and what a being desires and needs is bound to vary a great deal depending on that being's ability to think, feel, and mentally manipulate abstract concepts. In any case, I think we should consider much more than whether or not we're leaving a scar.
But that's me. I'd like to know what others think.
By the way, I do agree that in general we shouldn't put mature, non-human animals in the same moral/ethical category as human children, but that's probably a topic for another discussion.
Cheers.
More precisely, what should be considered criminally abusive treatment.
In a previous thread concerning Mitt Romney's transportation of the family dog, several posters scoffed at the idea that schlepping a dog from point A to point by strapping a kennel to the roof of one's car and hitting the road for hours at a time could be considered abusive. I don't want to re-fight that particular battle, so let me concede that some dogs might not mind traveling in such a manner and – presuming the weather was decent, the rest stops were sufficiently frequent, and the dog was shielded in some way from the wind – such treatment might not necessarily qualify as abuse. I don't know whether or not what Mitt did met all those qualifications. But again, that's not the point of this post.
No, the point is to try to flesh out what people here think about what is and isn't animal abuse. I'm curious because there were a couple of points made repeatedly by a few posters in the thread mentioned above and I'd like to know to what extent those are consensus views.
The first point was that to rise to the level of abuse, the treatment must involve physical harm, not merely transient discomfort, and must result in overt, persistent signs of physical or psychological trauma. (I'm paraphrasing and summarizing, but the above is my take on what was said about the absence of physical injury or lingering behavioral problems negating any allegation of abuse.)
The second point was that comparing dogs to kids for purposes of determining abuse is wrongheaded because dogs don't experience the world in the same way that a kid does and also because dogs don't have the same inherent “moral worth” as human beings. (Again, paraphrasing and summarizing...)
Right. Was that about the gist of it?
Personally, I side with those who think the definition of abuse goes a little beyond the infliction of physical injury or sustained psychological trauma. Actual laws vary, but for the sake of reference, here's a fairly typical example:
No person shall knowingly or negligently act to cause an animal unnecessary or unjustifiable pain or suffering, or allow such suffering to continue when there is a reasonable remedy or relief. Prohibited acts include but are not limited to: torturing or tormenting an animal; needlessly mutilating, maiming, or killing an animal; cruelly beating an animal; poisoning an animal; depriving an animal of necessary sustenance; confining an animal without supplying it during the confinement with sufficient quantities of good, wholesome food and water; and confining an animal without affording the animal access to shelter from heat, cold, wind, rain, snow, or excessive direct sunlight, if it can reasonably be expected that the animal would become sick or suffer in any other way as a result.
Please note that the law talks about unnecessary suffering, which I'd ague goes beyond lingering physical or psychological injury. Of course, then we're left to decide how we ought to gauge unnecessary or unjustifiable pain or suffering. To me, avoiding such suffering involves treating other beings with respect and, as much as reasonably possible, allowing them to live their lives according to their desires and their natures. It also involves not unduly privileging my own wants and needs above theirs. The devil is in the details, naturally, and what a being desires and needs is bound to vary a great deal depending on that being's ability to think, feel, and mentally manipulate abstract concepts. In any case, I think we should consider much more than whether or not we're leaving a scar.
But that's me. I'd like to know what others think.
By the way, I do agree that in general we shouldn't put mature, non-human animals in the same moral/ethical category as human children, but that's probably a topic for another discussion.
Cheers.
