Search

Critics of the animal rights movement often point out that a perfectly vegetarian world would result in a drastic reduction of the number of farm animals. This article is the first to systematically analysis the merits of this objection. The article provides several alternative ways of naming the objection, including "the animal elimination problem," "the carnivore's claim," and "the chicken and the bathwater dilemma." It also compares the animal elimination problem to the goal of humane societies to spay and neuter companion animals. The ways in which the animal welfare movement avoids this problem by substituting compassion for rights is also explored. A potentially fatal flaw of the "animal elimination" objection is the difficulty of talking about future or theoretical entities. Can animals not yet born have rights? Moreover, does it make sense to say that animals born into suffering might wish to never have been born? Several hypothetical scenarios are developed to address these questions. The author argues that the animal elimination problem does stall on the puzzle of assigning interests to hypothetical animals, yet there is a moral intuition about our relationship to the future that is worth considering. On secular grounds, there are no strong reasons to claim that we have duties to animals not yet existing, but Christian theology complicates the picture. The article ends with an exploration of the commands in Genesis to both humans and nonhuman animals to procreate and fill the world. The author concludes that Christians do have a duty to bring future animals into existence if they can do so within moral limits prescribed by the Genesis narrative itself. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective: There is a paucity of research regarding children who are cruel to animals (CTA). Previous studies have suggested that being CTA is linked with recurrent aggression in adulthood. In this report, children with persistent conduct problems who are CTA are examined. Method: A clinic-referred sample of 141 children and a community sample of 36 children between the ages of 5–12 were assessed using a test battery of questionnaires for parents, teachers and the child on mental health symptoms, self-perception, demographics and psychosocial factors. Forty of the clinic-referred children and one of the community group were rated by their parents as sometimes or definitely cruel to animals. The CTA, non-CTA and community samples were compared. Results: The CTA group had more conduct symptoms compared with the non-CTA group. However, the older CTA group unexpectedly reported a higher self-esteem compared with the non-CTA group. There was no significant difference between the two clinic-referred groups in gender, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and internalising symptoms, and psychosocial factors. Conclusion: Being CTA is possibly a marker of a subgroup of conduct disorder which has a poor prognosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]