As explained in my previous post, the issue that I am exploring is regarding the huge rift between the punishments for the murder of human being and that of pets. I am very aware how many would argue that human beings are different from animals, justifying this stand by comparing intelligence and biblical quotes from genesis. Statements written by influential philosophers, like Saint Augustine (A.D. 354–430) and Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), argue that animals have no capacity for reason and immortality. Therefore, since we are different, killing a fellow human being cannot be compared to that of an animal. However, if we recognize the anthropocentric nature of the above mentioned justifications and trace their historical development, we would eventually come to realize that why we think so, is very much the construction of how, for centuries, humanity has distinguished itself from nature. Throughout history, humans have continuously justified our actions and morals with philosophical thought that teach us to believe that the abuse and killing of a human being is more 'punishable' then the abuse and murder of an animal.
Our judgments are often socially constructed because they vary across space and time. For example, Cock fighting is an acceptable sport in Southeast Asia but is look down upon by Western societies. In ancient Rome, societies enjoyed the violence and gore of animal tournaments because animals were seen by virtually all Romans as a sub-human part of nature. However, much of today's societies are disgusted by such forms of entertainment. During the Jewish Holocaust, Jews were seen as 3/5 human and hence justified the cruel treatment and murder of almost 6 million Jews. In other words, our treatments towards animals change over time. As done in the past, by identifying animals as lesser beings, judgment passed on their abusers are often less severe. Then, why should our views towards animals and their value remain stagnant today, if almost every other aspect of modern society has seen some form of change?
Therefore, in sum, why I think our society’s judicial sentences for animal abusers are relatively lighter than those for a human murderer, is probably due to (1) how human societies have developed a philosophical hierarchy that places human beings above animals; and (2) that by doing so, justify cruelty and abuse of animals. Such anthropocentric ideologies have become so normalized and ingrained in society, that we become numbed to the weight of violence and cruelty behind some of these animal abuse cases. With such thinking present in judges and jury and law makers, it is hard to set equal punishment for both animal and human abusive killers. My fear is that without a change to our judgment towards animal abuse, how can we possibly justify that we are the morally superior species we claim to be? Therein lies a fundamental contradiction!
1 comment:
You make some very interesting points.When I first saw the title, I wondered how you could possibly argue this topic, and I guess that makes me one of the groups of people who see humans above animals. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge advocat for animal rights, but I never considered the punishment for humans abusing them should be equal to that of abusing humans (as you discussed in your latest post). Many of the stereotypes society has today are not going to change, and I think some of your points argue a fundamental point that drives the whole world: hierarchy and the food chain. The reason we can see ourselves above animals is because in most senses we do dominate them and we are more complex. For instance, its the same as if you were comparing an ant to a dog. You would undoubtedly feel much worse about the death of a dog or typically beloved animal than the death of an ant by a misplaced footstep. Our world runs on this food chain and dominance.
Despite my arguements, I do think stricter methods should be placed on those that abuse animals. Animals have a right to live peacefully enough in this world of hierarchy.
Post a Comment