1

Understanding What Cruelty to Animals Entails

In her essay on cruelty, Julia Tanner distinguishes between the various definitions of

cruelty and tries to resolve the contradictions found in the concept. Her main argument focuses

on cruelty towards farm animals. She holds the view that the commonly held claim, that human

treatment of farm animals is not cruel because the lives of such animals are sacrificed to meet

necessary human ends, needs to be reevaluated. To do this, we need to explore and establish

what constitutes necessity. Accompanying the idea of necessity, Tanner states, is the

understanding that the benefit of a certain action should outweigh its costs. Thus, for instance,

animals that are used in experiments to find cures for widespread and life-threatening diseases

may (arguably) be so used without the concerned scientists being deemed sadistic. However, it is

important to note that the necessity argument can, if a person wishes, be used to justify any and

everything. Taking the lives of animals, or hurting them, for the most trivial of human pleasures

may be held as necessary to the concerned persons happiness and thus morally justifiable.

Therefore, a consistent set of limitations, which objectively balance the rights and interests of the

animals with the needs of humans, should to be in place to avoid wanton exploitation of animals.

In this regard, Tanner provides a powerful example of the double-standard that currently exists in

the treatment of different species of animals. She proposes a hypothetical situation in which a

man tortures and kills puppies to extract a substance from them which enables him to enjoy

chocolate. Under the current animal rights legislation, this kind of activity would no doubt be

condemned as illegal and unethical. However, when it comes to poultry and cattle living in

factory farms, there is no legislation protecting them for undergoing essentially the same, that is,

being subjected to painful lives and deaths to provide gustatory pleasure to humans. Tanner
 2

concludes that if terms like cruelty, rights and ethics are to have any moral weight and

productive meaning, then objective evaluation and consistency are required in their application.

Spencer et al, in the essay History and Ethics of Keeping Pets, add another dimension

to the question of what cruelty or indifference to animals can entail. They challenge the notion

that pet-keeping is beneficial, or at the very least, harmless to animals. Instead, they claim, pets

are being used essentially for human ends in similar ways as farm or laboratory animals. For

instance, many people keep pets as a conduit for their affection and assume that the pets

dependence to them in turn is a sign that the pet too enjoys their companionship. However, the

writers argue there no guarantee that this is the case. It may just as well be a conditioned

response from the pet in exchange for benefits like food and touch. Moreover, it is also possible

that since traditional pets, like dogs, are social creatures, their loyalty to you is a substitute for a

the more fulfilling loyalty and relationship they would normally have with their pack. Another

argument they give against pet-keeping is that it implies an ownership, and indeed, most pets are

made to adapt to their owners lives at the expense of their own natural needs and desires. If the

confinement and exploitation of farm and lab animals is criticized on similar grounds then, to

avoid upholding contradictory standards, the ethics of pet-keeping need to be reconsidered as

well.