We are the superior beings, we believe. We have the right by birth to use other creatures for whatever we wish, in whatever way we wish. For our health and well-being, for appearances, for entertainment, for personal pleasure, to bolster our precious ego, to mass-produce food efficiently on factory farms, for money. The list goes on. It's an attitude that cuts us off from the life of the planet. It's long overdue time for a correction, a revolution of the heart and mind. Not based on sentimentality, but on necessity.

When does abuse become cruelty? Is any abuse cruelty? Are there questions of degrees of abuse like when a child is reprimanded for misbehaving according to some arbitrary rules that an outsider, judging soley on an innate notion of when a punishment fits the crime, might see as excessive? When does abuse become cruelty? Is this situation a matter of cultural context only, of ingrained feelings and thoughts inculcated through socialization, a moral frame of reference insulated from outside criticism by pure will and right to sovereignty? Or is cruelty and its perception a question of consciousness, of common sense, of empathy and their work on growing a conscience?

These are questions for philosophers and psychologists and social workers. They're far too general and tend to confuse and dilute the real issues of animal cruelty, its root causes and unconscious beliefs. The vast majority of us know what cruelty is, we see it everyday on the news and in our personal life. Even though in any given population there is a general consensus on where that line lies--what constitutes cruelty--it varies for each of us at different times and places in our life and under different circumstances. Does that mean its assessment is completely relative? Perhaps. Nonetheless, if it's blatantly obvious, we can't help but admit it; whether we care or not, we still know. We can point and say, "that's cruel." But we've learned to ignore it, to steel ourselves, to suppress our gut reaction. We're taught it's for the common good, or for the good of some like-minded group; it's how things are done and that's the way it is.

How much pain is too much? Well, that depends on the victim; how much can he take? If the victim can't speak for himself, who decides? Do the ends justify the means?

Is cruelty to animals in the eyes and feelings of the beholder only? Or can an objective criterion be established that effectively and unequivocally specifies the essential ingredients constituting animal cruelty? Beyond the obvious, I don't think either is possible. That is, there is neither a strictly subjective nor objective criterion. But, it would seem, that by first recognizing animals as capable of experiencing emotions and pain, of possessing states of mind and moods, of being individuals, it might be easier to empathize.

We believe that to cure diseases and prevent their spread, discover a vaccine, we need to experiment on some living thing. The closer to our anatomy and make-up, the better; although, almost any creature will do for specific research. Internalized as an a priori necessity--it has to be this way--the popular acceptance and government-backed legitimacy underlying that belief gives it rationality and justification. Ultimately, it bears the same authority as a general principle of the universe.

Our respect for and treatment of other living things represents a benchmark for how far our civilization has developed. An alien race on a survey mission might see past our self-delusional veneer of sophistication to focus instead on our attitude towards the planet. A so-called sentient species polluting the atmosphere and the finite supply of water, cutting down the oxygen-enriching forests (habitat), plundering the natural resources, killing and torturing animals in the name of science (cosmetics?), for pleasure (ivory trinkets and bragging rights), for entertainment (bear baiting, dog fighting), and for superstitious medical reasons might very well be perceived as invaders from another world. Along with endless wars, conflicts, genocide, slavery, torture, and the occasional mass murder, it seems reasonable that first contact might not be all that desirable.

We are the top predator in the valley--we have the technology--but that's not what makes us human.

Obviously, the pictures below are intended to evoke shock, outrage, sympathy, and shame, but that doesn't invalidate them. They speak for themselves, blatant and true.

I wanted to include the following by Marc Bekoff for anyone who may harbor misconceptions about the inner nature of animals. Compassion and empathy can only be deepened by a more thorough understanding. They are individuals and more than animate objects.