Gary L. Francione is the Board of Governors distinguished professor of law and Nichols deB. Katzenbach Scholar of law and philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law — Newark. He blogs at "Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach."

The reaction to what the accused cat kicker did is understandable and laudable. It is nothing short of terrible that anyone would harm a defenseless animal. But how different is it from slaughtering animals for food?

There is no morally coherent difference between the cat who was kicked and the chicken, pig, cow or fish that most people will eat today.

We kill and eat more than 58 billion animals a year worldwide, not counting fish. Indeed, the animals we use for food suffer as much — if not more — than the cat that was callously kicked. We eat animals because they taste good. We do not need to eat animal foods to be healthy; even mainstream professional organizations and governmental regulatory bodies recognize that.

So, how are we any different from Andre Robinson? We aren’t. There is no morally coherent difference between the cat who was kicked and the chicken, pig, cow or fish that most people will eat today. Robinson will be prosecuted for violating a statute that prohibits "unjustifiably" harming animals. What he is accused of doing was not justifiable. The problem is what the rest of us do is not any more justifiable.

We are a society that abuses billions of animals for no good reason. We excuse ourselves by pretending that people like Robinson are “abusers” and the rest of us are really “humane” and care about animals. We do this repeatedly.

Remember football player Michael Vick? People hate him to this day for engaging in dog fighting. Or how about Kisha Curtis, who gained international condemnation for throwing her emaciated dog, Patrick, down a trash chute in Newark? Patrick is still used as a symbol by those who claim that we must pursue “animal abuse” more aggressively. All of these cases have resulted in an overwhelming online response, just as stories about the eating of dogs and cats in China or Korea, or the killing of dolphins in Japan, result in comments that “those people” are barbaric — made by people who have no problem exploiting pigs, cows, chicken and fish.

The Robinson case presents an opportunity for us to examine our fundamental views about animal ethics. Otherwise, this is just about fetishizing dogs and cats, or demonizing those whom we arbitrarily designate as “barbaric.”



Join Opinion on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.

