Issues on animal cruelty in the United States came to the forefront of American media when football superstar Michael Vick was indicted on charges of funding and operating an underground dog fighting ring in his spare time. He reportedly trained the dogs using harsh punishment techniques, even killing dogs that didn’t perform well enough. In the wake of such an emotionally supercharged topic, one must ask the question of how our animal cruelty laws are enforced, not to mention the ethical principles guiding legal valuations.
First, let us understand animal cruelty. Animal cruelty is characterized as applying unusually harsh forms of punishment imposed on animals for either no reason, or pure entertainment. The impetus for animal cruelty behavior among humans is highly debated. However, psychology has shown that high occurrences of animal cruelty during childhood are an indication of future psychopathic and sociopathic behavior.
Even more sensitive is the ethical valuations of different forms of animal cruelty. The debate is centered on whether or not animal have the same sense of being and also if their existence warrants a certain set of “unalienable” rights (if you will). Anthropomorphic sentiments are often attached to these debates, citing that one should protect these animals’ dignity and honor. Organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) go so far as to promote vegetarianism, expose bad meat-processing techniques, and prosecute other organizations that overstep what some consider to be inhumane killing processes.
The large issue of whether or not killing animals is okay will unfortunately never be resolved. Big money businesses have generated huge profits from killing animals in order to supply the ever-growing fresh meat market. And while killing these animals seems to be permissible, there is an undefined threshold at which the treatment of animals goes from being right to being wrong.
Because the line is not defined, translating this threshold into a legal structure becomes extremely difficult. Questions like ‘What exactly connotes cruelty?’ and ‘What is unnecessary?’ come to the forefront of the debate. Subjective valuations get thrown around until something is actually agreed upon by the majority, usually stemming from an emotional tolerance level which varies across any given population.
We may never know what actually is right or wrong in any given situation, partially because it isn’t a matter of fact; it’s a matter of feeling. And since these varying emotional sentiments that permeate into reality are far from static, our perception of reality is skewed with bias. Michael Vick was convicted on the grounds that his activities were illegal. Whether or not it was right or wrong, we may never decide.
