It is often asserted that those who love animals must,
almost by definition, be regarded as kind and compassionate humans. Many recent
comments by supposed animal lovers on
popular social media, however, have exhibited
an inability to empathize with, and even an attitude of cruelty toward,
their fellow humans when those people are most in need of kindness and
compassion. So, does love of animals translate into an ability to empathize and
show compassion?
Let’s compare behaviors in two situations: one where it can
be argued that, despite the animal-related content, the respondents are not necessarily
animal lovers and one where the animal–advocacy leanings of the respondents
cannot be denied!
After a recent Facebook post by MSNBC’s The Ed Show announcing the death of former
President George W. Bush’s Scottish Terrier, Barney, and the offering of their
condolences, one responder posted that perhaps Barney committed suicide because
of who his owner was. Another “joked”
that perhaps Barney died because the President dropped him on his head. I admit that I never agreed with anything President
G. W Bush said or did, but I have suffered the loss of a beloved pet (more than
once) and know how devastating this is. In his time of grief the truly
compassionate would, and some did, set aside their political differences to empathize
and offer emotional support.
Unfortunately, it is true in our politically polarized
country open expressions of cruelty from the uninformed, the self-absorbed, and
the irretrievably biased are expected. In this case expectations were obviously
lived down to!
However, it never fails to amaze me, as in the following
example, the degree of cruelty that can be expressed by a section of the
population that is supposed to be, and frequently claims to be, compassionate:
Animal advocates!
 |
| The Flyer I Created To Publicize Humphrey's Plight. |
In a recent post on Facebook attempting to re-home a blind
St. Bernard/ Boxer mix called Humphrey following the traumatic brain injury of
one of the owners in a motorcycle accident, there were the usual helpful
suggestions and expressions of concern for a dog that was being displaced from
its family of several years. But
intermingled with these were attacks on the family who suffered the tragedy. How dare these people just dump their dog
because a family member was now brain-injured! Examples of these are:
·
“Families members only think of themselves don't
give a shit about there other family member there pets people are disgusting.
Love a pet and leave him worst part is he's blind and mostly horrified people
really do six is there laws for these people wtf” [sic]
·
“How could they do this to there poor boy so
bloody cruel,I hope and pray some good person takes him in bless him,so bloody
heartbreaking and he will be feeling that hurt too poor love” [sic]
·
“[T]his pup should be a comfort to the family
instead of a throw away . . .”
Faux intellectuals even tried to disassemble the wording on the
flyer created to publicize Humphrey’s plight looking for evidence which would
allow them to trash the family. It
should be remembered when reading the response below that the information
available to rescue organizations for the creation of such flyers is limited
and often, people such as myself (yes, I created the flyer) simply try to highlight the urgency of the
situation: we do not have the entire life story of the family available to us!
·
“How do you throw out an EIGHT year old dog
after having him since he was a puppy? Another odd thing about this
post.....and I quote, "The HUSBAND of his owner was tragically and
devastatingly injured ......" So its NOT his owner that was injured BUT
THE HUSBAND of the owner! This is terrible that the OWNER WHO WAS NOT INURED is
getting rid of this helpless dog. WHY doesn't someone do a fundraiser for the
dogs upkeep so the dog can remain in the home? Why is the OWNER who was NOT
injured doing this?” [sic]
In Humphrey’s case, such responders are apparently incapable
of placing themselves in the family’s shoes.
Traumatic brain injury to a family members places extraordinary
pressures on a family. Medical care,
rehabilitation, potential personality changes on the part of the victim,
specialized equipment, loss of income, and many other problems are potentially
in this family’s future, especially in a country that is not renowned for how
well it provides for victims of trauma, and yet they make approaches to animal
rescue organizations in an attempt to ensure that their dog, who is himself in
need of special care, receives the care that they feel he deserves and that
they no longer can provide. And what is
the result . . . someone says they “don’t give a shit”, another that they are “so
bloody cruel”. Anyone notice any similarities between the behavior in the two
examples?
In his book on ethics, On
The Basis of Morality, German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer wrote, “Compassion
for animals is intimately associated with goodness of character, and it may be
confidently asserted that he who is cruel to animals cannot be a good man.” Unfortunately, taken out of its place in a
much larger work as it often is this statement on its own commonly leads to a logical
fallacy. The proximity of the two elements of the statement leads people to accept
the statement as meaning that if being cruel to animals equals not being a “good
man” then compassion for animals equals being a “good man”. This is clearly not true! Surely goodness of character involves being
compassionate to more than one group! Compassion
for animals is certainly an indicator of the ability to empathize, to be
compassionate, but it does not guarantee that the ability will be used in all
cases.
I am the first to howl at the moon when I see blatant examples
of dog-dumping. We have all seen the
tell-tale excuses (and I have written about them frequently): someone has allergies,
there is a new baby coming, we can’t give them the time (even when there have
been no life changes), etc. In the
presence of extensive information available on how to overcome such problems,
these excuses indicate a lack of effort, an unwillingness to try. But something like the traumatic brain injury
of a family member is a truly life-altering event, an event that changes
everything, an event that means your life as you knew it before the event is
gone and those resources and circumstances that were yours before the event may
never return! And possibly, just possibly, the most traumatic part of this
life-altering event is that you now know, in all good conscience, that you cannot
look after your pet in the way that they deserve!
So come on animal advocates, caring for animals does not
mean losing our ability to care for people when the circumstances warrant! After all, the companion animals we claim to represent are able to show compassion and love unconditionally!
