Last year at June, an angry 19 year old teenager choked and threw a hamster out of the house and killed it instantly, and about three weeks ago, she was arrested and charged with aggravated cruelty to animals and faced up to two years in prison. I was pretty horrified when I first heard of this, and judging from some of the comments I’ve read from various blogs, the public seems indignant at what she has done.
There is probably not much debate on whether her action was humane or not, what I think really is worth talking about is Mark Bittman’s response in the New York Times. Bittman argues that we torture animals everyday in meat factories and we make it okay because we eat the animals (warning: he included some really graphic videos). The fact that a teenager is charged with a federal felony for killing a hamster while industries get away with grinding up 200 million chicks alive in a year is something that really troubles me.
Humans as a species have succeeded in evolution so successfully that we are hands-down on the top of the food chain. We have the ability to eat what we want and the power to bring many species of animals to extinction if we want to (or even when we don’t want to). We rarely have to worry about being overpowered by other animals, and as cliché as this sounds, we have the responsibility to go along with the power we have to make ethical decisions. I am by no means telling people to all turn vegetarians or vegan (I am definitely not one), but I think it is important to think about what makes mass killing animals for food okay and killing one hamster not.
How do we decide which animals are more important than others? Do we base it on the intelligence of the animals? (I’m pretty sure that pigs are smarter than hamsters.) The ability to perceive pain, death, or self-identity? We can buy rat poison in stores, but killing a pet mouse via poison would be animal torture, how do we explain that? Why is it socially acceptable to eat certain non-endangered animals and unacceptable to eat others?
It seems like the “purpose” of the animals is all that matters to humans instead of what species they are, and that seems to me a very subjective line and in a way, an irresponsible way to define things. I think the ultimate question comes down to how to balance human needs and wants with those of other living beings.
(Thanks to Christian for giving me this awesome link and some great ideas for the post)
Clearly, all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others. Even then, those that are treated like kings and queens in the USA face very different circumstances in other countries. In my community, for example, a cow is treated way better than say a dog. There, owners of animals treat their animals based mostly on their economic and cultural importance to them. Nevertheless, there are communal creeds that outline what you can and cannot do to your animals. However, since coming to Duke, I have never really understood what bothers people here the most. Do people advocate for animal rights solely based on the fact that animals have feelings or based on the detrimental effects on the environment that the meat processing industry in the USA has? If it is based on the feelings that animals experience as they are slaughtered for meat, then we might also be obligated to care about the feelings of the many mosquitoes that we have swatted to death based on the suspicion that they were going to bite us. Lastly, what makes eating plants more right than eating meat?
I agree. In China it is much more socially acceptable to eat a dog while in the U.S. such actions are condemned – and the same applies to cows in U.S. and India. It is a really hard question to answer – what makes some animals better than others and when can we do what to which animal? Not even just mosquitoes or rats, what about hunting for entertainment? A dog’s life is worth a lot more in the U.S. than in China, and that fact seems rather arbitrary. As for the plants…if we don’t eat them, there really isn’t really anything left to be consumed, but for me, the fact that plants can’t think nor feel is a good enough justification. What do you think?
I can’t help but think that the idea of sending a 19 year old girl to jail for up to two years is a little absurd given what you bring up earlier in the article: our gross indifference toward the far more torturous techniques we use in the American food industry. Moreover, what about all the other issues our society is facing, like the murder of other people? Should the justice system really be concentrating on one girl (who, for the record, probably has other emotional or mental issues that are unaddressed given an outburst of violence like this against a domesticated animal) rather than working on reforming a system which incarcerates more people than China? Moreover, there are cases of people convicted of manslaughter who go to jail for less time than what this girl is facing. What happened to the hamster was terrible, but to me it seems like a matter of skewed priorities.
But if we don’t do anything, it would seem like it’s okay to go around and kill hamsters in brutal ways. But this obviously goes back to the question why can’t someone kill hamsters when people can kill rats all they want and the whole not all animals are equal discussion. I don’t think she should go to jail (maybe a fine?) but I do think that something should be done, though that is a very “specieist” thing for me to think…
But isn’t it naive of us to categorically prohibit the killing of hamsters in “cruel and unusual ways” and not say anything about the dozens of other species we kill on a regular basis in far worse ways? I think the question goes even deeper than “are all animals equal” (after all we have no objection to snakes killing mice in “cruel ways” or lions hunting down cute little zebras–its all part of the food chain, right?) but rather, are animals owed “moral rights” in the same convention in which we all recognize the moral rights of humans. And this goes back to the debate over the role of consciousness and self-awareness in beings as a factor of what rights are owed to them. Peter Singer is one of the most well known advocates of animal rights (see this post by Kenanite Chris MacDonald http://food-ethics.com/2010/09/14/singer-protecting-animals/), but many find his arguements hard to come to terms with. Just some things to ponder.
what kind of person are YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I do think that all animals should be treated like humans as they are LIVING CREATURES tha thvae feelings and any one who would dare eating A hambuger or fish or boshintang if you had the heart to look into that meal and see that animal wether a cow a dog a pig a chicken it is a living creature HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF YOU WERE THAT ANIMAL BEING SNAPPED IN A TRAP OR BEING GRINED INTO FOOD this is my love and my passion so think before you catch a mouse in a trap or eat that hamburger as it will be a living creature and you’ll take that right of having a life from it so remember how would you feel if it were you you would like to keep your live why not them . And that girl should not have been sent to jail she shoudlv’e been thrown out a window and faced the deaath just like that poor hamster had.
So what do you think about insects?
killing the mosquito that just bit me and will bite me again in less than 2 seconds if left alone is self defense. killing a cow for its meat is self conservation. both are dictated by the most powerfull instict in nature: the survival instict. killing for fun or out of boredom is a cold blood murder for the sole reason that you kill just because you want to kill. so, in my opinion, what changes the severity of the act is the motive. not that the end justyfies the means, but killing the most certainly harmfull city rat is not the same as killing your supposingly “companion pet”. for nature it’s the same (many people think that if they are vegeterians, their survival is not based in the suffering of others, but truth is that every relative scientific experiment that was ever been made, proves that plants do feel.) whichever creature you kill.furthermore, it’s withinin natures ways that in order to survive one speces will eventually have to hurt another. so what i believe is that, no, it’s not he same killing in order to cover your phusical needs and killing for entertainment, anger, vanity (lab rats for cosmetic industries, wearing expensive chinchilla coat). the ideal would be not a single living organism being sucrificed so that others would live, but since the world is not a perfect place, it would be better if at least animal deaths would come to the very minimum. because even when taking the car for two blocks of overwatering the plants of your garden, you cause the death of millions of animals. so before you think of the poor little venomous sting, think a little of the poor little side effect victims, the penguins!
O MY GOD!!! Poor Thing I mean who would do such a thing omg omg omg omg omg omg omg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
killing an animal for food is reasonable but killing an animal for other useless reasons…. is definitly cruelty which is a sin…. unforgivable sin.
we kill mosquito because it bites us….
we are not supposed to kill animals according to our mood swings…..
that is definitly cruelty…
but yes that 19 year old shouldnt be send to prison for 2 years…. that is a little toooo harsh.
she should be hung and killed! I love hamsters and dislike people!