I was reading Love in the Time of Cholera this morning and I
encountered this phrase describing how the character Dr. Juvenal Urbino carried
a certain feeling of hatred for animals.
"He said that people who loved them to excess were
capable of the worst cruelties toward human beings. He said that dogs were not
loyal but servile, that cats were opportunists and traitors, that peacocks were
heralds of death, that macaws were simply decorative annoyances, that rabbits
fomented greed, that monkeys carried the fever of lust, and that roosters were
damned because they had been complicit in the three denials of Christ."
 |
| SOURCE: http://costumeshred.com/category/dog-costumes/ |
The line which said "people who loved them to excess
were capable of the worst cruelties toward human beings," struck me the
most because I happen to hold the same belief. I am not an animal lover, but I
am not exactly a hater. I just cannot reconcile why people have to spend
thousands for their pets or parade naked on the streets for veganism when they
can do something more important–to care for millions of impoverished kids who have
no choice but to endure hunger, pain, and cold.
Of course, I am aware that animals are living beings too and
that they should be treated with utmost kindness. I also respect how the
creation account in the Bible mentioned that humans should be the stewards of
everything God created on earth, including animals. However, I think there are
a lot of people these days who got confused with the real context of their
"role." It seems that the care ethics they practice for animals is no
longer rational.
For instance, Americans spend over $41 billion annually for
their pets. That amount is higher than the gross domestic product of most
countries in the world, and is even expected to go higher in the coming years
despite the global economic instability. The worst part is that most of the money
was burnt on foolish and unnecessary things like Neuticles–a pair of patented
testicular implant that cost $919. The inventor claimed that this allow
"people to restore their pets to anatomical preciseness," and also
let pets retain their natural look and self-esteem.
However, it is obvious that there is something wrong with the
scenario. Pets cannot talk and even if they could, I don’t think they would
want to have such an artificial body part installed because that is not
necessary for their survival and is not even useful for their reproduction.
According to psychology experts, this is problematic because most humans want
to reward their beloved animals in human terms which is something that is already
unnecessary. Several studies made it clear that men have “moral obligations
only to animals which are proximate, open to caring completion, and capable of
reciprocity.” That is why it is okay to care for a stray cat that shows up at
the yard or treat wounded birds that had been attacked, but man is under no
obligation to practice veganism or provide shelter for animals that are better
off in the wild.
 |
| SOURCE:http://www.good.is/post/good-books-read-up-on-animal-rights/ |
A study titled “Care ethics and Animal Welfare” had a similar
argument which states that “the human obligation to care for non-human animals
is limited by the degree to which non-human animals are dependent upon humans"
(Engster, 2006.) Logically, this shows that the obligation to care is rooted in
dependency. Why would men need to care for animals that can survive on their
own and attain happier lives by being free? The study further postulates that
veganism or vegetarianism is also not required for as long as animals manage to
complete their maturity without being abused, and for as long as they are
humanely slaughtered.
Certainly, I have nothing against those empty nesters and
single professionals that try to divert their attention and affection to pets
as their companion. I just hope that they will manage to find the balance
between caring for animals and being concerned of other people’s needs. No
matter how we put it, the lives of human beings are still more important than
that of animals. It is better to provide food, clothing, and shelter to victims
of calamities and famines especially those that belong to third-world nations
than to buy unreasonably expensive animal clothing and accessories for pets. This,
however, does not mean that animal abuse and mindless slaughtering will be
encouraged. Protecting animal rights is still a vital player in the society,
but knowing the appropriate role of stewardship toward them is a must. Men will
always be the “caretakers” of the earth where the Bible obliged them to provide
the needs of animals and avoid cruel acts.
Sources:
http://www.gotquestions.org/animal-rights.html
http://www.iep.utm.edu/care-eth/#H9
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_32/b4045001.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment