Professor Lesli Bisgould on Re-Examining Our Moral Schizophrenia on Animals

John Stuart Mill wrote that the successful implementation of new ideas happens in three stages. New ideas are ridiculed, then discussed, and finally adopted. Recently the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund, led by guest Professor Lesli Bisgould, proved that we are in the second stage by hosting a discussion on the problem of animal rights (or the lack thereof) in our legal code. The event opened with a chilling story of a Canadian legal case. Two boys abducted a neighbor’s pet cat and proceeded to disembowel and torture the animal for over 15 minutes before finally allowing the creature to die. The boys were arrested and tried in court for misdemeanor mischief and animal cruelty. Interestingly enough, the mischief offenses carried much graver penalties than the animal cruelty solely because the cat was a household pet. Indeed, the destruction of a neighbor’s property was the most damning offense for which the boys could be held responsible. The cruelty amounted to hardly more than a fineable offense, and the property damage carried a maximum penalty of two years jail time. This difference in the way the law views the gravity of these offenses raises complicated questions regarding the law’s treatment of animals and their rights.

Professor Bisgould contends that western philosophy and legal discourse is grounded in an understanding that nature and its inhabitants are rightfully property of mankind. The labor theory of property as espoused by John Locke grants that by human labor we can formally take dominion over land and animals. Descartes too calls animals unfeeling machines, a designation which inherently eliminates any notion that our behavior towards them could be considered cruel. This categorical distinction between human beings as “beings” and animals as “things” has led even our modern animal cruelty laws to prohibit only “unnecessary harm” towards animals. These laws have the effect of protecting those that would harm animals rather than the animals themselves because built into the law code are “necessary” protections for offenders. As the professor pointed out, the word “necessary” in relation to harm is a dangerous distinction which is never used in governing the relationships between equals. This raises perhaps the most interesting point that Professor Bisgould offered to the students: Our understanding of property has not changed since its inception, but the science behind our understanding of animals has radically altered the ethical discussion. Evolutionary theory has proven our close genetic relationship to animals and further scientific study has demonstrated that, like humans, animals communicate, have divergent interests, possess personalities, and can feel profound pain. As Darwin said, our evolutionary cousins “vary in degree but not in kind” from us. The hard to answer question then becomes “what morally relevant differences between animals and humans can justify our hurting them in extreme ways that could not be justified as against human suffering?”

Professor Bisgould asks us to examine our moral schizophrenia with regard to animals. The torture of a pet cat deeply offends our sense of decency and propriety, yet equally heinous offenses numbering in the billions are carried out every year so that we can eat animals and the products they produce. We are assured and want to believe that the “generally accepted practices” which exempt industry from animal cruelty offenses make the mutilating and killing of animals less morally wrong than the story of the cat in Canada. However, in most instances the pain caused to industry-owned animals vastly exceeds the 17 minutes of torture the cat endured. What does humane treatment really mean? Is a lack of emotional attachment to a specific animal really a satisfactory justification for allowing it to suffer? We are all participants and beneficiaries of “the animals as property” conception of rights. At what point an animal transforms from a thing to a being is a difficult question we all must answer in light of new developments in science, ethics, and law. Professor Bisgould’s lecture bears testament to the growing field of law striving to generate rights for all life on earth.