Indeed, most people would be disturbed to learn that a family brought home a dog or a cat from a shelter and then proceeded to treat him or her like a violent criminal -- even a criminal sentenced to life imprisonment rather than death. ... Rather than proving that people treat animals better than they do their fellow human beings, then, the humane killing of pets represents the exception that proves the rule. Pets are the honorary family members who are officially exempt from the casually vicious treatment reserved for the remainder of animal-kind.
-- Sherry Colb, "Lethal Injection and Animal Euthanasia: A Fair Comparison?"
Prof. Colb here discusses the claim by some that we supply more care in euthanizing our pets than given sometimes by lethal injection protocols. In effect, she finds this not very surprising, since pets are like family, not strangers, strangers who in many cases are often considered almost (or actually) subhuman threats to society. Thus, even the dangerous pit bull or rabid dog might be given more respect. All the same, our concern for non-human "animals" (humans are animals) is selective. [The essay in fact quotes a Jewish writer that compares the treatment to the Holocaust, a comparison is likely to get many in trouble.]
And, Colb has written some about this subject, concerned about animal welfare issues as well as her focus on gender and such. Just today, I read an article in the local paper -- it has a regular animal feature on Saturdays that focuses on dogs and cats -- on the Farm Sanctuary. It concerned the "somber" event of a death of one of its first members -- a Holstein steer. I wrote an email to the author of the article thanking her for its respectful and informative nature, providing a chance for readers to think about something they might not think much about generally. This is good as a general matter -- the NY Daily News also does the same in its weekly religion column.
Anyway, the article in part noted:
In his new book "Farm Sanctuary: Changing Hearts and Minds about Animals and Food," founder and President Gene Baur explains the dangers and abuses of factory farming (raising animals in high-density, confined conditions) and encourages the public to think about the inhumane treatment of the farm animals that become our food.
Professor Colb would concur, noting in part:
Such animals - including mammals, such as pigs, who greatly resemble the animals we keep as companions (not to mention ourselves) in their social nature and in their capacity for fear, pain, and joy - live in cramped, filthy, dark, and unhealthful surroundings and are separated from their young and suffer unregulated surgeries (like tail croppings and castration) without any anesthesia. These animals ultimately die a terrifying and painful death, however well-hidden from public scrutiny. The Animal Welfare Law notably does not even apply to animals raised for food.
Though many think so, as with the death penalty, it is not necessarily the case that absolute prohibition is necessary to provide an acceptable result in this context. One interesting person who has done much to relieve the mistreatment of animals raised for food is Temple Grandin, who has written how her autism better enabled her to have some sort of connection to animals, understanding something of what they are experiencing when led to slaughter. She herself is an expert on the design of thoughtful and humane animal handling equipment. Grandin argued that animals have some sort of right of humane (natch) treatment, which does not necessarily require a vegan path.
Another legal mind that has addressed the issue of animal rights and welfare is Martha C. Nussbaum, who provides the philosophy side perhaps of the Cass Sunstein/Nussbaum marriage. One of her many projects handled the topic, but it also popped in her latest, Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America's Religious Equality. Briefly, I found this overall a rewarding work, though at times I felt she covered certain topics in a somewhat simplistic fashion is promotion of her thesis (equal respect the key concern here). But, she is not alone here, including those for which constitutional law is firmly their field. Nussbaum's coverage of Roger Williams, often portrayed a basically dark man, itself is worthwhile -- he comes off almost like a teddy bear at times here.
To touch upon a few examples: Nussbaum has studied India in particular, so her mention of Southasian religions as well as the more rational/deistic type God of some monotheistic religions among the "other" that is often forgotten is not surprising. All the same, sometimes she seems to miss that certain events firmly trouble sects of mainstream religions as well -- Jesus spoke of praying privately, references to "G-d" suggest certain Jews might be bothered with "In God We Trust." She also doesn't really do a great job clearly defining what actually is "religion" per se; while firmly arguing "conscience" warrants deep respect, she implies it is not always co-existent with religion per se.
[Likewise, she suggests targeting of homosexuals is more a question of fear of other than religious in nature per se, though noting that discrimination lacking the former tends to consist promoting the latter. But, to take the most divisive subject, marriage is often seen as a sort of "sacrament," a religious component clearly present.
Selective state sponsorship, even in an age where fornication laws are no longer really enforced, has clear free exercise problems at least, and probably establishment ones too. Pre-textual or not, "God" often pops up in these discussions, the current policy apparently required by that entity. Nussbaum has a broad vision of religious liberty; even policy choices with indirect burdens on religion should concern her as religious issues as such. But, I think this one in part is directly involved with her subject here.]
And, the examination of case law is at times too shallow, if overall worthwhile and even quite thought provoking.* But, again, one rarely finds a book of this sort without some flaws -- the topic is just so hard to summarize in a perfect way. And, even while not wanting to admit some religions lead to some concern in public policy, Nussbaum is honest enough to raise the point. 19th Century Catholic leadership at times caused some rightful concern, even if corporal punishment of boys who wouldn't quote the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments (weirdly, Scalia and Thomas don't remind us of such things in their opinions supporting more sectarian religion in school) is obviously offensive.
Anyway, this whole aside did not lead me to miss the opening -- Nussbaum covered the issue of evolution, including laws that banned the teaching the man evolved from "lower order of animals." She perspectively notes that teaching evolution arguably does not violate such a law; in fact, it might not violate a law that banned teachings that went beyond the terms of Genesis [Catholic schools, for example, find nothing wrong with teaching evolution]. The teaching of evolution does not require putting animals on some "lower" plane, though it might very well require us in some fashion but them on a higher one -- the connection of non-human animals to you and me does suggest they deserve more dignity than they often receive.
And, in fact, the animal welfare movement did surge in around the same time as Darwin developed his theories. A rational and emotional consistency is present here -- respect for the well being of animals crossing into many fields.
---
* Nussbaum's concern with bans that arise largely from shame and taint leads to some libertarian results -- her book on the subject, for instance, looked askance at many sorts of public nudity bans. In her knew book on religious equality, Nussbaum puts forth a positive view (at least vis-a-vis other practices of the era) of nineteenth century Mormon polygamy. She also strongly rejected bans on prostitution (partially on other grounds) in response to the Spitzer mess. The opinion piece on the point is worth reading and makes some important points.
Unfortunately, she ignores the fact that he himself enforced the laws in question, and does not address the obligations of following even bad laws (particularly if you are in charge with executing them!). I reckon even Germany and Netherlands have some ill-advised laws or even (Germany in particular) regulate prostitution in such a way that one can still break the law when taking part. His other problems, including the fact he was known to be a prick (to be blunt) in his public roles, also is relevant. Spitzer was a flawed leader, and he has a chunk of the blame for his ruin. Such things must be kept in mind.