In James Garbarino's essay Protecting Children and Animals from Abuse: A Trans-Species Concept of Caring, he essentially argues that the ability to harm animals is the ability to harm children, and vice versa. He states very simply that, "...using the occasion of investigating animal abuse as an opportunity to do an assessment of the quality of care for any children cohabiting with the animals in question" (562).
This assertion is oftentimes validated in every day society. Many serial killers once began with the mutilation of animals as a means towards mutilation of humans. Take for example, Ted Bundy, who was executed in the 1980's for the murders of 22 women. It was discovered in the trial that Bundy had participated in the mutilation of squirrels for fun as a young boy. This had fueled his "blood-thirst" as he matured. This too validates Garbarino's point that "...shame based on the denial of basic human rights is the engine that drives the violence machine" (563).
However much I may agree with Garbarino, I think his assertions are very narrow-minded. Indeed, children and animals exhibit much of the same "innocence" as one another. They both can be easily subjected to tortures and terrors that no grown human would, in the right moral mind, go along with. However, couldn't any human be subjected to the tortures of the sadistic human mind? I believe there are 22 dead women because of one.
What I am suggesting is that Garbarino should broaden the assertion to include the fact that human beings who participate in animal harm are more likely to harm human beings as a whole. Just because children are innocent does not mean that they are the only subjects of this abuse. As Garbarino stated, a denial of basic human rights will fuel the violence machine. There is no limit to where violence begins or ends. It simply is.
Question: Do you think that the abuse of animals, even by those who consume meat from and support CAFOs, is a reflection of a morally degraded society as a whole? Have we become complacent to cruelty?
Garbarino’s focus is on children and animals; he does not “discount” the interests or rights of other persons. In fact, he talks about a “social fabric”, and an “ever-expanding ethic of caring”, and, the “cultural foundations of cruelty in general”. This includes all of us, and I agree with your assertion, that we are all (adults, children, animal) susceptible to abuse. Some good insight here, but I disagree that Garbarino’s assertions “are very narrow-minded”. In my view, whatever we can do to strengthen his argument, in turn, reinforces his initial – thoughtful, challenging, and powerful claims.
ReplyDeleteI will respond to your post.
ReplyDelete