Animal Cruelty: A Choice or An Obligation?

I am in support of Holly L. Wilson’s argument that in order to prevent animal cruelty, we must embrace the connection between cruelty of animals and its connection to humans. The connection between both cruelties allows humanity to reflect on its actions and cause a positive change on both treatments. This is in contrast to Singer’s proposition of establishing equal consideration of human and animal suffering, and in essence, the equality of all species.


Without animals as a separate entity from humans, the judgment of morality and human actions, both to humans, and outwards to animals lack a contrast (Wilson 71). Currently, human beings can observe and make judgment on the treatment of animals and whether it is cruel or not. They can then adjust their actions accordingly such as becoming a vegetarian or protesting against factory farms which could translate in a similar compassion shown to fellow humans (Wilson 67).


If this judgment were to be replaced by a law, then human beings would lack the choice of abstaining from animal-cruelty (Wilson 71). Singer’s method of enforcing laws for animal rights only reforms our actions towards animals, while Wilson’s interpretation of Kant’s idea of animal-treatment would alter our actions towards animals and ourselves (Wilson 71). I consider Kant’s method more expansive and malleable than Singer’s method because it does not rely on complete societal compliance or the erasure of the popular concept of human dignity. If humans were to value the treatment of animals by their own volition instead of being forced to by law, then that compassion might translate inwardly, thereby creating a heartier effect than just more law-abiding citizens.