This doesn't initially seem like it's related to horror movies, but I'll try to tie it in in a subsequent entry.
So, there's an argument that "animal lovers" typically use when talking about the violence of wild animals and pets. In the context of pets, people will always say that animals are not bad, but there are only bad owners. Usually, this will get a bunch of "likes" online when talking about pets who have enacted (committed) violence against humans.
Is this true? As an absolute general statement, it seems sketchy at best. Unless you are blind and willing to ignore evidence, there are plenty of examples of pets who have attacked, maimed, or killed children. Even with the domestic dog, there is this strong propensity to make the dog blameless. Yet, if the dog is truly blameless, why do we even discipline a dog for a minor behavioral issue? And then when the dog does something truly violent, why do we invoke an even more counter-intuitive response of saying that the dog shouldn't be punished?
Is it because a dog doesn't understand the moral and ethical consequences of violence? Is this similar to making a claim that a human being who is "insane" or "incompetent" is not really responsible for his/her crimes? If the answer is yes, then are we saying that certain human beings and dogs in general are basically in the same category? Doesn't this mean that dogs deserve a set of conditions that allow them to enjoy the same rights and privileges of a "compromised" human being?
It seems like the position that pets are somehow morally incapable of making decisions about violent behavior potentially places them in a position to require that we give them the same rights and privileges as human beings. This is a problem because the vast majority of them do not enjoy those rights and privileges. It brings to mind the problem of class or hierarchy in human societies. Slaves, serfs, and the lower-class have historically enjoyed less rights and privileges based upon what would appear to be "natural" reasons that have to do with some sort of super-natural, unquestionable hierarchy and categorization.
In a way, I think I'm getting at the idea that we invoke the "human" as a category when it serves to justify certain acts or practices. "Animal lovers" clearly feel a need to defend their pets or even the "normal" bad behavior of a predator like a shark which attacks a human. In the case of the dog which attacks a child, if it's true that the pet is somehow blameless, then why do we euthanize the dog? It seems like a contradiction. Or an unfortunate "random event"? Yet, if we did allow a dog that has attacked a child to remain at large, what would we be saying?
We would be saying that dogs should enjoy some rights and privileges even though they are not human. But if we define humanity in a way that largely includes the well-being and freedoms of being an agential entity (I guess this is another way of saying "human"?), then dogs should enjoy some rights and privileges even though they may not be able to ascertain the moral and ethical gravity of enacting violence towards others. The funny thing about laws is that there is no imperative for a person to understand the historical or legal necessities and justifications of a law.
You just have to follow the law for the law to be effective. If the law is designed to protect human beings in the first place, does it really matter if the law breaker is a dog or mosquito or a virus?
On one level, it seems like we are simply saying that humans take precedent over dogs in practical situations. We can't risk a dog attacking another child or human being. A human that does the same thing would either be institutionalized or imprisoned. Because that human is a human. We wouldn't generally "euthanize" a human for a first-time infraction.
And what about the owners of pets who do enact violence towards others? On the one hand, we seem to be saying that misbehaving pets are simply because of a bad owner; but on the other hand, how many pet owners are being put on trial for manslaughter when a pet kills a child? Shouldn't that pet owner spend time in a maximum security jail for violent offenders? Yes, there is legal action that can be done against pet owners, but isn't there a big difference between a dog which attacks a child and a human who attacks a child?
When we say a dog is blameless yet we treat them essentially as slaves, are we ultimately just trying to enforce a contradiction that is designed to reify the unstated superiority of the human?
No comments:
Post a Comment