Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse or animal neglect, is the intentional infliction by humans of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival. More narrowly, it can be the causing of harm or suffering for specific gain, such as killing animals for food or for their fur; opinions differ about the extent of cruelty associated with a given method of slaughter. Cruelty to animals sometimes encompasses inflicting harm or suffering for personal amusement, as in zoosadism. Laws concerning animal cruelty are designed to prevent needless cruelty. “Millions of animals, mostly frogs, are killed every year expressly for educational use. This action leaves the impression that animal lives can be wasted if this benefits humanity.”[1] Divergent approaches to such laws occur in different jurisdictions throughout the world. For example, some laws govern methods of killing animals for food, clothing, or other products, and other laws concern the keeping of animals for entertainment, education, research, or pets. Cruelty to animals is not the same thing as disrespect towards animals. In broad terms, there are three
conceptual approaches to the issue of cruelty to animals. The animal welfare position holds that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals for human purposes, such as food, clothing, entertainment, and research, but that it should be done in a way that minimizes unnecessary pain and suffering, sometimes referred to as “humane” treatment. Utilitarian advocates argue from the position of costs and benefits and vary in their conclusions as to the allowable treatment of animals. Some utilitarians argue for a weaker approach which is closer to the animal welfare position, whereas others argue for a position that is similar to animal rights. Animal rights theorists criticize these positions, arguing that the words “unnecessary” and “humane” are subject to widely differing interpretations, and that animals have basic rights. They say that the only way to ensure protection for animals is to end their status as property and to ensure that they are never used as commodities. Before modern biology revealed similarities between humans and animals, some thinkers considered humans completely distinct from animals; the controversy
over animal welfare was virtually non-existent.[citation needed] However, there were those who found the poor treatment of animals disturbing. For example, Renaissance thinker Leonardo da Vinci’s regard for animal welfare is well-documented. He was particularly troubled by the sight of birds in captivity, and biographer Giorgio Vasari wrote that he once purchased caged birds in order to set them free. Da Vinci also expressed anger within his notebooks with the fact that humans use their strength and power to raise animals for slaughter. René Descartes, argued that non-humans are automata, complex machines with no soul, mind, or reason.[4] In Cartesian dualism, consciousness was unique to human among all other animals and linked to physical matter by divine grace. However, close analysis shows that many human features such as complex sign usage, tool use, and self-consciousness can be found in some animals.[5] Charles Darwin, by presenting the theory of evolution, revolutionized the way that humans viewed their relationship with other species.
Darwin believed that not only did human beings have a direct kinship with other animals, but the latter had social, mental and moral lives too. Later, in The Descent of Man (1871), he wrote: “There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties.”[6] Some philosophers and intellectuals, such as Peter Singer and Tom Regan, have argued that animals’ ability to feel pain as humans does make their well-being worthy of equal consideration. There are many precursors of this train of thought. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, argued in his An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789): Animal cruelty can be broken down into two main categories: active and passive. Passive cruelty is typified by cases of neglect, in which the cruelty is a lack of action rather than the action itself. Examples of neglect are starvation, dehydration, parasite infestations, allowing a collar to grow into an animal’s skin, inadequate shelter in extreme weather conditions, and failure to seek veterinary care when necessary. In many cases of neglect in which an investigator believes that the cruelty occurred out of ignorance, the investigator may attempt to educate the pet owner, then revisit the situation. In more severe cases, exigent circumstances may require that the animal be removed for veterinary care.[9] Farm animals are generally produced in large, industrial facilities that house thousands of animals at high densities; these are sometimes called factory farms. The industrial nature of these facilities means that many routine procedures or animal husbandry practices impinge on the welfare of the animals and could arguably be considered as “cruelty”. It has been suggested the number of animals hunted, kept as companions, used in laboratories, reared for the fur industry, raced, and used in zoos and circuses, is insignificant compared to farm animals, and therefore the “animal welfare issue” is numerically reducible to the “farm animal welfare issue”.[10] Similarly, it has been suggested by campaign groups that chickens, cows, pigs, and other farm animals are among the most numerous animals subjected to cruelty. For example, because male chickens do not lay eggs, newly hatched males are culled using macerators or grinders.[11][12] The American Veterinary Medical Association accepts maceration subject to certain conditions, but recommends alternative methods of culling as more humane.[13][14] Egg-laying hens are then transferred to “battery cages” where they are kept in high densities. Matheny and Leahy attribute osteoporosis in hens to this caging method. [10] Broiler chicken suffer similar situations, in which they are fed steroids to grow at a super-fast speed, so
To reduce aggression in overcrowded conditions, shortly after birth piglets are castrated, their tails are amputated, and their teeth clipped.[5] Calves are sometimes raised in “veal crates�, which are small stalls that basically immobilize calf during their growth, reducing costs and preventing muscle development, making the resulting meat a pale color, preferred by consumers.[10] Animal cruelty such as soring, which is illegal, sometimes occurs on farms and ranches, as does lawful but cruel treatment such as livestock branding. Since Ag-gag laws prohibit video or photographic documentation of farm activities, these practices have been documented by secret photography taken by whistleblowers or undercover operatives from such organizations as Mercy for Animals and the Humane Society of the United States posing as employees. Agricultural organizations such as the American Farm Bureau Federation have successfully advocated for laws that tightly restrict secret photography
or concealing information from farm employers.[16] The following are lists of invasive procedures which cause pain, routinely performed on farm animals, and housing conditions that routinely cause animal welfare concerns. It is arguable whether these practices are cruelty to animals. There are studies providing evidence of a link between animal cruelty and violence towards humans.[18][19][20][21] Conviction statistics are thought by some to show people convicted for animal cruelty to be more likely to be violent to humans, leading experts to believe that decreasing animal abuse will, in turn, decrease domestic violence.[22] Meanwhile, others explain apparent correlation by criminal courts more often convicting the former for the latter crime as a self-fulfilling prophecy, without any actual link between the two types of actions.[23][24] Others argue that psychiatry and other authorities outside of courts keep records of who have been cruel to animals and can make
biased guesses about whether or not they did violence to humans thereafter and also that they conversely record people who have been violent to humans and can be more biased towards later assuming them to have been cruel to animals, explaining apparent links by institutional bias without link between the actions themselves. [25][26] Intentional acts of cruelty can lead to multiple years behind bars.[27] [28] These acts (of intentional animal cruelty or non-accidental injury) may be indicators of serious psychological problems. [29][30] According to the American Humane Association, 13% of intentional animal abuse cases involve domestic violence.[31] As many as 71% of pet-owning women seeking shelter at safe houses have reported that their partner had threatened and/or actually hurt or killed one or more of their pets; 32% of these women reported that one or more of their children had also hurt or killed pets. Battered women report that they are prevented from leaving
Intentional acts of cruelty can lead to multiple years behind bars.[27] [28] These acts (of intentional animal cruelty or non-accidental injury) may be indicators of serious psychological problems. [29][30] According to the American Humane Association, 13% of intentional animal abuse cases involve domestic violence.[31] As many as 71% of pet-owning women seeking shelter at safe houses have reported that their partner had threatened and/or actually hurt or killed one or more of their pets; 32% of these women reported that one or more of their children had also hurt or killed pets. Battered women report that they are prevented from leaving their abusers because they fear what will happen to the animals in their absence. Animal abuse is sometimes used as a form of intimidation in domestic disputes.
One of the known warning signs of certain psychopathologies, including antisocial personality disorder, also known as psychopathic personality disorder, is a history of torturing pets and small animals, a behavior known as zoosadism. According to The New York Times, “[t]he FBI has found that a history of cruelty to animals is one of the traits that regularly appears in its computer records of serial rapists and murderers, and the standard diagnostic and treatment manual for psychiatric and emotional disorders lists cruelty to animals a diagnostic criterion for conduct disorders.[33] “A survey of psychiatric patients who had repeatedly tortured dogs and cats found all of them had high levels of aggression toward people as well, including one patient who had murdered a young boy.”[33] Robert K. Ressler, an agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s behavioral sciences unit, studied serial killers and noted,”Murderers like this (Jeffrey Dahmer) very often start out by killing and torturing animals as kids.”
Cruelty to animals is one of the three components of the Macdonald triad, indicators of violent antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. According to the studies used to form this model, cruelty to animals is a common (but not universal) behavior in children and adolescents who grow up to become serial killers and other violent criminals. It has also been found that children who are cruel to animals have often witnessed or been victims of abuse themselves.[35] In two separate studies cited by the Humane Society of the United States, roughly one-third of families suffering from domestic abuse indicated that at least one child had hurt or killed a pet. Many times, when Asiatic elephants are captured in Thailand, handlers use a technique known as the training crush, in which “handlers use sleep-deprivation, hunger, and thirst to ‘break’ the elephants’ spirit and make them submissive to their owners”; moreover, handlers drive nails into the elephants’ ears and feet. The practice of cruelty to animals for divination purposes is found in ancient cultures, and some modern religions such as Santeria continue to do animal sacrifices for healing and other rituals. Taghairm was performed by ancient Scots to summon devils.