At the beginning, I felt that the link between animal abuse and human abuse really brought in a new perspective to look at justice in our society. However, as I tried to develop my argument, it became apparent that this link was not at all straightforward and easy. It required a great extent of detailed case comparisons as well as a very open mind to the ugliness of reality.
Throughout my research, I found difficulty in trying to find recent sources that laid out the punishment that were given to animal abusers as well as murderers. There was no apparent source that explored the discrepancy between the punishment given for these two crimes, although they are rather similar in nature. Hence, without many accurate examples, I found it hard to strengthen my argument. Even with a handful of relevant case studies, I still feel that there are many other factors that can affect the severity of punishment given. Just a case in point, could the media and apparent public humiliation have lighten the sentence of Michael Vic's case? Such details require more time and resources, which I did not exactly have in abundance. And my worry is that this limitation may have limited my own judgments and affected the credibility of my comparisons.
However, putting this problems aside, I feel like I have really benefited from exploring this issue. Having a very strong attachment to animals and nature, I find myself needing to be constantly reminded not to let emotions form the bulk of my argument. For example, it is so easy to simply argue that animal abusers should receive the same punishments as murderers, but when you really sit down and explore the issue, you realize that it is a very slippery argument - especially when it comes down to killing animals for food and game (culture).
Two interesting finds that was not included in my previous posts were the ideas of Louis P. Pojman, Jeffrey Reiman, and Otto Kiefer. Pojman and Reiman pointed out that even though Americans seem to be unsure about issues regarding the death penalty, it is because they are pulled between the noble desire to do justice and the equally worthy instinct of compassion. In the same way, why so many of us may be hesitant in insisting severe punishments for animal abusers could be because we are living in the 'real world' where issues are complex and often entangled in moral conflict. We are torn by questions like whether it go against human compassion to take a boy's life simply for committing one mischievous act that harmed his pet? Although disheartened at the injustice placed on animals till today, Otto Kiefer's words bring comfort as she moralized that: “Those orgies of hate and cruelty [by ancient Romans] were bound to produce the gospel of love… the whole of Roman sadism is a necessary step towards a new, a truly noble {Christian} state of humanity”. In other words, the cruelty of the past and the present is necessary to produce a better world for our children! Similarly, todays overwhelming leniency towards animal abusers eventually would spur the desire for positive change. For the beauty of human society is that we are morally guided to learn from the tragedies and violence of our past.
Finally, this process has allowed me to practice the technique of 'lensing' which is something like looking at an issue through another totally unrelated one. In this case, it was to look at the punishment for murder through the issue of animal abuse. This really created a whole interesting topic for me to explore, not just for this project, but also for my personal intellectual growth in the future. All in all, I had a great experience through this exercise, partly due to the informality and argumentative nature of blogging. Thanks to everyone for the positive learning experience!
No comments:
Post a Comment