Lack Of Intervention In Animal Abuse

Focus of advocacy project (topic and summary): Need for greater compassion and awareness on animal abuse cases

Animal abuse refers to the intentional violent and cruel treatment of animals. According to AVA, the number of animal abuse cases that it has handled has been on the rise in recent years, increasing by more than 65%. Some examples include the Yishun cat abuse cases and Tampines cat deaths. Many innocent animals suffer and die due to excruciatingly painful injuries as a result of a lack of compassion and intervention. Like humans, animals are able to experience suffering and deserve the right to be treated humanely. In addition, turning a blind eye to the suffering of animals will eventually have a psychological impact on us and cause

However, both deontology and consequentialism state that animal abuse as well as the lack of intervention are morally wrong:

Animal abuse is the intentional cruel and violent treatment of animals. However, the action goes against our moral obligation to be compassionate and treat all other living things with dignity and respect. As such, by considering the action alone, animal abuse is considered morally wrong by deontology. The lack of intervention is also morally wrong as no help is given to the animals even after witnessing their abuse, and the action does not adhere to our moral duty to help others when they are in need.

Animal abuse is considered morally wrong by consequentialism. This is because animal abuse fails to maximise the ‘good’ and the outcomes are often bad. As a result of cruelty and abuse, animals suffer from excruciatingly painful injuries and may even lose their lives. Their rights to be treated well are violated and their well­being is compromised as well. Witnesses may also be influenced to play a part in animal abuse. The lack of intervention is not morally right either, as it only prolongs the suffering of the animal and will also reflect a lack of care in society ­ growing apathy will only result in a lack of action for other more pressing issues that may arise in the

rendered defenseless against human beings. If animals have not done wrong, why should they deserve ill­treatment and abuse which they are defenseless against? This is why animals experience injustice when intentionally treated with violence and cruelty despite their innocence. consequentialism states that telling a white lie in this case would be morally right as the result of the action is a good one. need for greater compassion as well as increased awareness on what to do and who to report to. Showing compassion is morally right because it aligns to our moral duty and will also enable us to ensure the well­being of animals.

In addition, through raising awareness on what to do and who to report to when witnessing animal abuse, people will be more likely to intervene. This is morally right because we have a moral obligation to help those in need, and we can prevent and stop the abuser from engaging in abuse. Animals can also receive treatment as soon as possible and therefore suffer less. The information provided to the relevant authorities can also help to nab criminals more