Last year, someone doused a 2-year-old female pit bull with gasoline and set her on fire. According to a report in The New York Times, a policewoman "ran past idle onlookers" to douse the blaze. This horribly cruel act illustrates how some humans treat animals. But before you give up on our species entirely, consider the story that author Hal Herzog tells about a woman who refuses to use flea powder on her dog. Instead, she picks the fleas off with her fingers and takes them outside, where they presumably live long, chemical-free lives.
Are we humans conflicted in the way we regard animals? You bet we are.
Herzog, a psychology professor at Western Carolina University, is an anthrozoologist, one who studies how humans interact with other species. In his entertaining and cleverly titled book, "Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat," he skillfully weaves research studies and personal anecdotes into a tightly knit overview of this exotic field. In the process, he reveals just how confused we are about how we treat the nonhuman creatures with whom we share the planet - and how difficult it is to tease out the reasons for that confusion.
For example, many animal lovers have pet cats. Most of them love their cats and are sympathetic toward other animals. How then do they rationalize what they are doing to chickens? Herzog estimates that if each cat in America eats just two ounces of meat a day, pet cats will consume "the equivalent of two million chickens - every single day." What is the proper ethical balance between chickens and cats?
Many people who worry about such questions become animal-rights activists. They tend, Herzog writes, to "see moral issues in terms of black and white rather than shades of gray." Some become vegans and boycott firms that test their products on animals. As they become more and more involved in animal-rights issues, a few go overboard. As one activist said, "I drive myself crazy about it. It dominates my life."
The ethical dilemma that drives animal-rights people crazy is, Where do you draw the line? How does one balance the rights of one species with those of another? For instance, many of us can agree that cats and dogs have some rights. The right not to be starved or tortured, for instance. But what about snakes and rats and cockroaches? A few activists believe all living creatures have equal rights.
If four men and a dog are on an overloaded lifeboat, these extremists say flip a coin to decide who should be dumped into the sea. Most reasonable people would disagree with this view. It leads to a world, according to one animal-rights advocate, "in which termites have the right to eat your house."
Can a person who is concerned about the ethical treatment of animals avoid the trap of pushing a human overboard to save a dog? Can our contradictory attitudes toward animals - which vary between those who believe it's OK to torture dogs to those who empathize with fleas - ever be reconciled?
Herzog thinks not. Our relationships with animals are too confusing and too complicated. "I have come to believe," he concludes, "that these sorts of contradictions are not anomalies or hypocrisies. Rather, they are inevitable. And they show we are human."
Phillip Manning's most recent book is 'Chemical Bonds.' His book reviews and essays on science are at www.scibooks.org.
