The most interesting thing to me about the Michael Vick case is the widespread discourse on the topic of animal cruelty it has engendered, which is the first of its kind that I can remember. Sports publications and blogs have been buzzing about the story since its inception, but the conversation has hit a feverish pitch with the mainstream attention following his announcement that he’ll be pleading guilty on Monday.
It’s not uncommon to see statements like Daniel Negreanu‘s, wishing things upon Vick like “having these killer dogs that he was involved with breeding and fighting, rip his arms and legs to shreds. He deserves it. He seriously deserves to suffer.” Statements like that, which are pretty easy to find right now, make me realize how little thought most of us have put into animal cruelty.
When it comes to animal cruelty, everybody draws the line somewhere. It’s interesting to see where that line is. For instance, do you think Daniel, who goes on to say “One thing that’s rarely talked about, though, is speciesism. Humans can be really nasty. Just because we ‘can’ we often take advantage of, and abuse power in very inhumane ways.” would wish the same punishment on people who swatted a fly? Would he wish they be crushed by a falling building or the like?
If not (and most sane people who agree with him about Vick probably wouldn’t) why shouldn’t he? Flies are animals too. Why do dogs have more intrinsic value? Because they’re cuter? Is it ok to kill ugly animals? Or is it a size issue? Or maybe it’s about vertebrate. Either way, to value one species over another (in this case dogs over flies) is the very definition of speciesism, and we all do it.
I don’t know Daniel well, and hell, maybe he literally wouldn’t harm a flea. I’m just using him as an example since I happen to read his blog and his sentiments seem to match those of a lot of people these days. And, as always, I think it’s important to see things from every angle, which in this case means recognizing that almost everyone commits countless acts of animal cruelty.
Anyone who drives a car kills and/or maims dozens of animals throughout their lives. Over one million vertebrates are estimated to be killed each day by American motorists. That’s almost one and a half living, breathing animals that feel pain and emotions like fear or hunger (and maybe even love) just like we do, per driver per year.
So just by driving, you’re drawing a line somewhere. You’re saying that you’re willing to kill birds and squirrels just so you can get around. You might think it’s significantly less awful than what Michael Vick did, and I’d agree with you, but you should be cognizant of the fact that you are committing acts of animal cruelty for your own convenience.
By eating meat, or dairy, you’re also drawing a line. There’s a hell of a lot of cruelty in that process, and you’re contributing to it. Sadly the same is even true of vegetables, the harvesting of which with heavy machinery causes the accidental deaths of millions of wild animals. In fact a study has shown that a vegan diet actually kills more animals than certain types of carnivorous diets would. So if you’re buying your food, you’re committing animal cruelty.
By owning a pet you’re supporting an industry rife with cruelty. How many dogs are put down every year? How many fish are starved to death in pet stores? How many small reptiles or rodents die in transport? If you own a pet, you’re committing animal cruelty and drawing that line.
The fact is we all draw it somewhere. It’s a part of life and has been since the first human descended from the trees. It’s important to remember that when we talk about Michael Vick. It’s important to be cognizant of our own acts of animal cruelty, and to stop pretending that the fact that we are ignorant about how many squirrels we run over or how many chickens we ate had their beaks cut off and lived in a tiny box their entire life means we aren’t guilty of it too. Unless you’re a substance farmer living off the grid somewhere, you are.
Of course, I’m not trying to equate eating meat to torturing animals for amusement. They’re very different things. But they’re both animal cruelty. I would have thought a few months ago that electrocuting dogs was far beyond most of our lines, which seems to be drawn somewhere between convenience and sadism. But it turns out that a lot more people than we all might have guessed think differently. Making dogs (and I would assume some other animals as well) fight to the death is more popular in our country than those of us above the Mason-Dixon might have thought.
So if someone’s line is drawn in a different place than ours, and apparently a lot of them are, how much do we really have a right to be offended? What if they grew up somewhere where everyone’s line was pretty far from the one we’d like to believe Americans as a whole have chosen? Can we still be as mad as we would if they came from our community?
When it comes to drawing lines, most of us tend to do so in the same place our parents or our friends did, who in turn drew theirs the same way. There’s a pretty good chance Michael Vick went to his first dog fight with his father. There’s a pretty good chance that his friends and family saw nothing wrong with it, and saw torturing dogs in much the same light that you see running over a rabbit on your way to work. And there’s a pretty good chance that Vick came to see it the same way. Of course, that doesn’t make it right, and it certainly doesn’t mean we should simply allow it to continue, but it does mean that maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to throw stones.
I don’t know exactly what should come of this particular case, and I’m a dog lover and an animal nut in general, so I’m not in the best position to judge this particular case. Looking at it emotionally, I’d side with Negreanu. But I do know that when you’re cognizant of the fact that you too have a line, and you too commit acts of animal cruelty on a very frequent basis, it’s hard to be as judgmental as you might otherwise have been.
