{"id":267984,"date":"2020-09-07T06:08:19","date_gmt":"2020-09-07T10:08:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=267984"},"modified":"2020-09-07T06:08:19","modified_gmt":"2020-09-07T10:08:19","slug":"people-hate-cruelty-to-animals-so-why-do-we-do-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2020\/09\/07\/people-hate-cruelty-to-animals-so-why-do-we-do-it\/","title":{"rendered":"People hate cruelty to animals, so why do we do it?"},"content":{"rendered":"<figure id=\"attachment_267985\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-267985\" style=\"width: 1320px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><a href=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/photo-1552729540-3ffb78df36dd.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-267985\" src=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/photo-1552729540-3ffb78df36dd.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1320\" height=\"1001\" srcset=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/photo-1552729540-3ffb78df36dd.jpg 1320w, https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/photo-1552729540-3ffb78df36dd-300x228.jpg 300w, https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/photo-1552729540-3ffb78df36dd-768x582.jpg 768w, https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/photo-1552729540-3ffb78df36dd-1024x777.jpg 1024w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1320px) 100vw, 1320px\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-267985\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">When we hear about animals being neglected, we\u2019re often outraged. Consider the revelation of the mistreatment of racehorses at a Queensland abattoir, or the man who decapitated a kookaburra. These stories left many of us shocked and appalled. (File Photo: Ester Marie Doysabas\/Unsplash)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>Animal welfare experts <a href=\"https:\/\/www.abc.net.au\/news\/2020-08-10\/rspca-sa-releases-cruelty-cases-amid-warning-over-recession\/12539596\">warn our pets<\/a> could <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sbs.com.au\/news\/insight\/why-pets-are-at-risk-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic\">suffer<\/a> during the coronavirus pandemic, including from <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sciencetimes.com\/articles\/25666\/20200512\/covid-19-pandemic-leads-increase-animal-abuse-abandonment-heres-why.htm\">abuse or abandonment<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>When we hear about animals being neglected, we\u2019re often outraged. Consider <a href=\"https:\/\/www.abc.net.au\/news\/2019-10-17\/racehorses-sent-slaughterhouses-contravention-racing-rules\/11611688\">the revelation<\/a> of the mistreatment of racehorses at a Queensland abattoir, or the man who <a href=\"https:\/\/www.news.com.au\/technology\/science\/animals\/hundreds-sign-petition-to-prosecute-alleged-kookaburra-killer-daniel-welfare-for-animal-cruelty\/news-story\/f895c034f1532d9ededfd97eda56b096\">decapitated a kookaburra<\/a>. These stories left many of us shocked and appalled.<\/p>\n<p>But harm to animals is common in our society. Tens of billions of animals are killed in farms and slaughterhouses every year. Their deaths are sometimes <a href=\"https:\/\/www.dominionmovement.com\/\">truly horrific<\/a>. Humanity\u2019s relationship with animals is dysfunctional: humans love animals yet <a href=\"https:\/\/www.newyorker.com\/magazine\/2020\/08\/24\/what-have-we-done-to-the-whale\">simultaneously<\/a> perpetrate extreme violence against them. This is not only bad for animals. It\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2020\/05\/21\/opinion\/coronavirus-meat-vegetarianism.html\">bad for us too<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>But humans and animals cannot simply end their relationship and part ways. We have to share a world. So we have to forge a <em>better<\/em> relationship. The hard question is: what shape should that new relationship take?<\/p>\n<figure><iframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"https:\/\/player.vimeo.com\/video\/230171301\" width=\"500\" height=\"281\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\"><\/iframe><figcaption><span class=\"caption\">WARNING: graphic content.<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h2>Differing standards for humans and for animals?<\/h2>\n<p>Here\u2019s an ethics thought experiment. Five humans are dying of organ failure. The only way to save their lives is to kill one healthy person, harvest their organs, and transplant these into the five dying people. Is it morally acceptable to kill the one to save the many?<\/p>\n<p>If you\u2019re like most people, your answer is a firm \u201cno\u201d. Humans have a right to life and can\u2019t be killed in service of the greater good. This is an example of what\u2019s known as a deontological judgment.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><em><br \/>\n<strong><br \/>\nRead more:<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\/if-you-dont-eat-meat-but-still-wear-leather-here-are-a-few-facts-to-chew-on-127322\">If you don&#8217;t eat meat but still wear leather, here are a few facts to chew on<\/a><br \/>\n<\/strong><br \/>\n<\/em><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p>But now let\u2019s change the scenario. Suppose you are the manager of a sanctuary for chickens. An infectious virus is spreading through the sanctuary and you have to decide whether to kill one infected chicken or allow the virus to spread throughout the sanctuary, killing a larger number. Now what?<\/p>\n<p>When confronted with the chicken scenario, many will say it\u2019s acceptable to kill the one to save the many. Your responsibility as manager of the sanctuary is to promote the aggregate health and well-being of all the chickens in your care. If this means you have to kill one chicken to save many more, so be it. This is an example of what\u2019s known as a utilitarian judgment.<\/p>\n<p>When we think about cases where animal lives are at stake, we often tend to think in utilitarian terms. When we think about cases where human lives are at stake, we often tend to think in deontological terms.<\/p>\n<h2>Animal activists put to the test<\/h2>\n<p>Even animal activists, committed to a view of animals and humans as moral equals, may be inclined to see animals and humans from these differing perspectives.<\/p>\n<p>At an animal activist conference in Melbourne last year (before the pandemic) we divided the audience into small groups and gave them different scenarios featuring different species.<\/p>\n<p>Only 35% of those considering chicken cases said it was wrong to kill one chicken to save the many, whereas fully 85% of those considering human cases decided it was wrong to kill one human to save the many. An informal experiment, but it seems to illustrate a very human tendency to think of animals and humans according to different standards.<\/p>\n<p>That tendency has been observed in many contexts. Robert Nozick influentially discusses a bifurcated view along these lines in his 1974 classic <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wiley.com\/en-au\/Anarchy+State+and+Utopia-p-9780631197805\">Anarchy, State, and Utopia<\/a>. But the question of whether such a view can be attributed to ordinary people is only recently being rigorously studied by psychologists such as <a href=\"https:\/\/luciuscaviola.com\/\">Lucius Caviola<\/a> at Harvard University.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><em><br \/>\n<strong><br \/>\nRead more:<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\/illegal-hunters-are-a-bigger-problem-on-farms-than-animal-activists-so-why-arent-we-talking-about-that-126513\">Illegal hunters are a bigger problem on farms than animal activists \u2013 so why aren&#8217;t we talking about that?<\/a><br \/>\n<\/strong><br \/>\n<\/em><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p>Beyond psychological research, we can look to institutions for evidence that this sort of bifurcated view is widespread, as <a title=\"Utilitarianism about animals and the moral significance of use\" href=\"https:\/\/philpapers.org\/rec\/KILUAA\">we have argued elsewhere<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>For example, when animals are used in scientific experimentation, researchers are mainly expected to show the benefits outweigh the costs: a utilitarian standard.<\/p>\n<p>But when humans are used, characteristically deontological considerations, such as consent and autonomy, are brought to bear; a cost-benefit analysis isn\u2019t enough.<\/p>\n<p>So we tend to be more utilitarian about animals than about humans. Yet we also don\u2019t see all animals from a purely utilitarian perspective. Think about your family dog. Would your conscience allow you to kill her to save five other dogs?<\/p>\n<h2>Three perspectives<\/h2>\n<p>The upshot: humans seem to be capable of seeing animals in at least three very different ways.<\/p>\n<p>First, we\u2019re able to regard animals as objects that exist solely for the sake of our use and enjoyment and that don\u2019t matter in themselves. For an example, consider the way the fishing industry treats <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=NklxOhr2faI\">bycatch<\/a> as disposable.<\/p>\n<p>Second, we\u2019re able to regard animals as beings who matter in themselves yet who are fundamentally interchangeable with others. That\u2019s a utilitarian perspective. It\u2019s the perspective you occupy when you endorse killing one pig to save five. Such a view is defended by world-renowned Australian philosopher <a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com.au\/Animal-Liberation-Peter-Singer\/dp\/0061711306\">Peter Singer<\/a>, among many others.<\/p>\n<p>Third, we\u2019re able to see animals as beings who not only matter in themselves, but who also have rights, such as the right to life, or the right to bodily integrity, or even the right to liberty.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps it\u2019s strange to see farmed animals that way, but it\u2019s not so strange to see non-human family members such as cats and dogs in that way. And famous philosophers such as <a href=\"http:\/\/dailynous.com\/2017\/02\/17\/tom-regan-1938-2017\/\">Tom Regan<\/a> have argued a vast range of animals ought to be seen in that way.<\/p>\n<figure><iframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/NklxOhr2faI?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0\" width=\"440\" height=\"260\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\"><\/iframe><\/figure>\n<h2>The future of human-animal relations<\/h2>\n<p>Currently, many of us see most animals as mere things, the way fishermen typically see bycatch. And this might continue into the future.<\/p>\n<p>But that\u2019d be a tragedy. Despite their differences from humans, animals are conscious individuals with their own welfare, and so do matter in themselves. Recognising this will be an essential step in reducing the tremendous amount of unnecessary suffering and death that humans inflict on animals.<\/p>\n<p>The simple recognition that animals are not mere things is in itself of massive importance, but it\u2019s also only the beginning of the work we have ahead of us. As a society we must confront deep and difficult questions about whether animals have moral rights and, if so, what those rights might be, and how (if at all) their rights differ from those of human beings. Philosophers have been debating such questions for decades but haven\u2019t reached consensus (yet).<\/p>\n<p>Such questions must be addressed before we can we hope to find a new relationship with animals that fully recognises and respects our obligations to them.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><em><br \/>\n<strong><br \/>\nRead more:<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\/not-just-activists-9-out-of-10-people-are-concerned-about-animal-welfare-in-australian-farming-117077\">Not just activists, 9 out of 10 people are concerned about animal welfare in Australian farming<\/a><br \/>\n<\/strong><br \/>\n<\/em><br \/>\n<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" style=\"border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;\" src=\"https:\/\/counter.theconversation.com\/content\/127448\/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic\" alt=\"The Conversation\" width=\"1\" height=\"1\" \/><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https:\/\/theconversation.com\/republishing-guidelines --><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\/profiles\/david-killoren-890831\">David Killoren<\/a>, Research Fellow, Dianoia Institute of Philosophy, <em><a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\/institutions\/australian-catholic-university-747\">Australian Catholic University<\/a><\/em> and <a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\/profiles\/robert-streiffer-880543\">Robert Streiffer<\/a>, Professor of Philosophy and Bioethics, <em><a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\/institutions\/university-of-wisconsin-madison-939\">University of Wisconsin-Madison<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<p>This article is republished from <a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\">The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\/people-hate-cruelty-to-animals-so-why-do-we-do-it-127448\">original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Animal welfare experts warn our pets could suffer during the coronavirus pandemic, including from abuse or abandonment. When we hear &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":267985,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[54365],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-267984","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-instagram","mauthors-david-killoren-australian-catholic-university","mauthors-robert-streiffer-university-of-wisconsin-madison","mauthors-the-conversation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267984","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=267984"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267984\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":267986,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267984\/revisions\/267986"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/267985"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=267984"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=267984"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=267984"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}