In Judeo-Christian tradition, one of man’s central roles is the protection and husbanding of animals. This is, by small extension, also evident in such vastly different traditions such as Confucianism.
For instance, a tenet of Confucianism is that people who are handicapped (mentally / physically / whatever) are to a certain extent better – in that they do not have to worry about all the responsibilities of the normal person. Unfortunately (from our viewpoint) or fortunately (from their viewpoint), they must rely on others to perform some responsibilities for them. If someone has no hands, he must rely on others to work fields to grow his rice. If a person has no ability to understand culture (i.e. extreme autism), then he cannot be held responsible for this by society.
Extending this (poorly illustrated) principle, animals are handicapped men – in that they are unable to perform the advanced self care that we perform for ourselves. Being better able to model, predict, and control the future, we have the responsibility to assist them (being handicapped in this sense).
From this we quickly see the role of shepherd or pet in the ethical tradition: a protected life is provided to an animal (for farmed animals, easy access to food, protection from predators, assistance in propagating genes, &c., and for pets) in return for either products and food (farmed animals) or companionship and enjoyment (pets). A theoretically/ideally speaking, a pet agrees to give up responsibility and control over its living situation, eating schedule and diet, and complete freedom of movement and activity, in return for the guarantee of sufficient food, living space, and care (injury/ sickness / emotional health).
From this, the source of outrage over abused pets is clear. An animal (handicapped in its ability to stand up for itself and understand the complex world we force it to operate in) has made a deal with humanity (more specifically a particular individual) and the more responsible, capable party (humanity / the individual) is failing to uphold their end of the contract.
I think that this is at least much of the basis for almost all religious (or non-religious, socially oriented) organizations’ argument for the protection of animals. From a purely non-theistic perspective, I think that the most anti-social action possible is for a significantly more powerful entity to treat a significantly less powerful entity with the full extent of its power – inflicting it on the weaker party. Society is about working together; man is expected to protect the weaker. While Ayn Rand may disagree, I think that even objectivists would allow that strong individuals have a responsibility to protect the weak members of their pack (i.e. selected individuals). I think even Ayn Rand would agree that abusing a contract merely because the other party has no strength to prevent it is an abomination of social activity.
So, in summary, the one thing that I ABHOR more than any other is when people treat animals as if they have no intrinsic worth. Forcing an animal to realize that it has no power to control its environment is hateful enough; then abusing an animal after it has been forced to surrender everything is as close to non-theistic evil as I can imagine for a social animal such as humanity.
If I had my way, anyone who abuses a pet would be similarly abused. Individuals are as helpless against groups (and groups vs. nature), and some need to be reminded of that.
Introspection Ayn Rand, Catholicism, Objectivism, Pets, philosophy, psychology, social contract
Recent Comments