The possible conditions about laws to stand against animal cruelty and for protecting animal feeders have the potentials of widespread changes, as well as some similarities among different countries. This effectively gives enough reason for launching a research, which would present effective outcomes and results, which would present some important answers to the existing unfulfilled questions. Through careful contextual factors and conditions about, the research showcase the centrality and umbrella-like influence of animal cruelty laws to actual manifestations like used for protecting animal feeders. Additionally, other considerations were central in portraying the circumstances and conditions as well.
When tackling the topic about laws concerning animals, there is a legitimate challenge since this covers a wide area of many topics comprising entire countries’ numerous legal codes and statutes. It is why this dissertation is generally focused upon two distinct yet interrelated topics. Animal cruelty, by normative view of the law, is the infliction by humans the commission or omission of suffering and/or harm toward non-humans (Sauder, 2000). Providing to protection for animal feeders generally relate to individuals or parties who take to providing necessary food for consumption to non-humans. Such people are generally threatened by a number of external forces actions like verbal abuse, physical violence as well as constructed or derived legal action like threats for eviction (Li & Davey, 2013). Nevertheless to properly understand these would require getting into the umbrella concepts like animal rights and animal welfare respectively.
1.1 Animal Rights and Welfare in terms of preventing cruelty and protecting feeders
The point about including the ideas, concepts, questions etc. regarding the treatment and behaviors against animals included some questions being presented throughout human history. For instance, Leonardo Da Vinci’s notebooks displayed the emotion of anger he felt towards humanity raising animals for slaughter. However, French philosopher Rene Descartes believed that non-humans or animals are ‘functioning automata’, basically meaning that they are complex machines with no soul, reason or mind to actually compare with humans (Srinivasan, 2013). Nevertheless, it was Charles Darwin’s seminal theory of evolution, which fully painted the picture of the relationship that humans had with other species. Despite what Descartes had claimed before, there was noted sign usage in complex forms, use of tools and a certain extent of self-consciousness, which were evident within some animals (Sauder, 2000). Social, moral and mental orientation is evident under the theory of evolution for animals; however, as noted by contemporary philosopher Nigel Warburton, humans have sought to use animals as they see fit with the dominance of justifying their underlying differences from human beings.
Animal rights and welfare is mostly based upon the following terms, and often end up point to the fact that capacity of suffering constitutes the main focus of discussion. This is the current point of basis that laws against animal cruelty and for protecting animal feeders have become so prominent under judicial conditions and statements in so many places and nations (Srinivasan, 2013). The notion of life-hood, and the conditions of suffering that animals have to experience has immense magnitude in terms of occurrence. Taking, for example, the questions about animal cruelty could constitute legitimate concerns about the conditions, policies and functions of factory farms in general (Sauder, 2000). Or, they could potentially involve a random act of inflicting physical violence in the hopes of gaining something, such as entertainment in circus or video. Additionally, the point about inflicting cruelty could be seen as an act or behavior to be attained as an end by one, which also constitutes a legitimate case of animal cruelty.
The need for protecting animal feeders generally originate from wider social concerns about recognizing the concepts of animal rights and welfare. It applies to people specifically in terms of protecting those who satisfy the needs of animals from a specific perspectives. There are certain animal species who have been first domesticated by humans, and then eventually remain within the human society (Srinivasan, 2013). It could be seen as people owning pets, or stray dogs and cats that remain localized in an area, depending directly upon humans for their survival. Generally speaking, laws are aimed to those who actually help in surviving with the term animal feeders generally meaning those who provide food. However, in such a case of concerns, there have been many instances of other humans looking for ways to prevent humans in terms of actually see through their motivations and their resultant actions.
So, both these topic areas are covered in the law in many countries across the world, but the main question of this research focuses if there actually has been proper coverage of legal policies and codes in such fashion. From the previous paragraphs, it is quite evident that the occurrences of challenges and cases under law (Srinivasan, 2013). The main point of question would be to seek out and understand whether laws from different countries actually recognize the scenario (Srinivasan, 2013), and is able to convey judgment with proper orientation and recognition of animal rights and welfare respectively.
1.2 How Different Countries present the Laws that prevent Animal and Protect the Animal Feeders
The variations under the laws about the potential provision of recognizing legal constructions under both these conditions and circumstances are highly relevant and consequential. India, for example, launched the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act in 1960, and it has become the primary legal basis of seeking proper animal rights and welfare in the country (Sorenson, 2003). Section 11 specifically provides the grounds for animal cruelty making it illegal to inflict unnecessary pain or suffering or other causes, which could be experienced by the animals (Srinivasan, 2013). For a long time, the details of this Act was tantamount to a number of contradicting positions and circumstances. These were, however, changed with the Indian Animal Welfare Act, 2011, which sought to classify animal cruelty as an offence and actually increased the fine to a minimum of 10,000 INR on first time offences (Srinivasan, 2013). However, the still active Act is still operable under the indication of opening up possible exceptions like the killing of animals for food and for different religious purposes of tradition and/ceremony (World Wildlife Fund, 2020). These perspectives leave a great deal of opportunities for egregious actions of animal cruelty to actually not receive a great deal of prosecution and the achievement of justice.
Sections 428 and 429 of the PCA, 1960 mentions that it is illegal to cause any injury or maiming to animals, even those that are stray and live close to human proximity (Li & Davey, 2013). Moreover, Section 11 ensures that it is illegal to poison any animal regardless of their state. However, as one can note that there is no specific provision in the law for protecting animal feeders in the country in what is their lawful right to explicitly do so (Sorenson, 2003). Only the point of the Animal Welfare Board of India issuing recognizable Identification Documents have possible notion of preventing harassment from other people (World Wildlife Fund, 2020). But, one can evidently view the apparent gaps under this legal provision, as it leaves a great deal of options open for the many actors in attacking and preventing animal feeders.
In the United States of America, there is most definitely a different set of conditions operating in terms of what the proposed legal conditions and arrangements bring forward. The Animal Welfare Act, 1966 is the most prominent law operating in the country, which potentially provides the legal instrument in preventing animal cruelty, specifically in the federal level of governance (Sorenson, 2003). However, this act only seeks to prosecute animal cruelty only under specific conditions, including research, exhibition, transport and those who indirectly profit as a business. Among other criteria, there are also Endangered Species Act, 1973, which actually makes it illegal to kill an animal belonging to a recognized endangered species (World Wildlife Fund, 2020), and Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture (PACT) Act, 2019, which makes egregious forms of animal cruelty like crushing, burning, drowning etc. of all animals a federal criminal offense (Sorenson, 2003). However, the most important responsibilities in these legal codes within the jurisdiction of states, which tend to offer laws that differ significantly. As a balancing case, local governments of counties and cities also provide necessary statutes of directing and presenting possible equitability in the law of recognizing animal cruelty even if their respective states should not recognize many of the required clauses and sections.
In terms of protecting animal feeders, the question associates directly with most state and local laws instituting legal statutes, policies and conditions, mainly on the basis of companion animals and protecting wildlife (Srinivasan, 2013). Feeders could specify their attention in any specific direction, but it certainly poses a problem wherein the possible distinctions could not be made (World Wildlife Fund, 2020). These laws have lately started associating with some notable directions of presenting ‘hands on’ scenario to effectively require reduction of harmful conditions and circumstances (Kelch, 2012). All these points are all significantly associative of presenting and constituting important factors (Kelch, 2012), which show the apparent failure to recognize such occurrences and the problems that could be faced.
As one can effectively witness, the apparent distinctions and differences between animal cruelty laws and those protecting animal feeders are notable in India and the United States (Kelch, 2012). However, there is certainly consistent trends, which need to be address in terms of the contexts, conditions and specificity covered under these grounds at large. (World Wildlife Fund, 2020) These would comprise the overall conditions, which would provide the necessary grounds of performing the exact research depending greatly upon the applying details.
1.3 Research Problem
The general specific conditions that apply to animal cruelty laws generally supply with the observations that they essentially fail at achieving their ultimate results. A number of possible reasons could apply to them, such as lack in proper enforcing, a wide extent of possible exemptions and other incidental factors (Kelch, 2012). The lack of proper, direct and actually effective composition of legal statutes addressing the topic need to be explored in terms of what different laws present under different jurisdictions. The matter with laws protecting animal feeders offers a different scenario at large, which evidently applies specifically to India in terms of instituting the conditions for cruelty animals may happen or take place (Kelch, 2012). However, the case of United States does not even go as effectively as it probably should (World Wildlife Fund, 2020). This opens up the question whether occurrences against animal feeders is as notable in many countries as they are in India, and what exactly constituted the proper definition of the term ‘animal feeder’ (World Wildlife Fund, 2020). These important questions all require helpful answers with the help of the constituting circumstance of research questions mentioned below.
1.4 Research Objectives
The conditions associated with presenting the necessary of objectives of this research are as follows:
- To properly understand the ideas behind animal rights and welfare, which went in to establishing these laws.
- To find proper explanation of the lack in context and background exactly why certain areas, small or big, of topic focus or area are not actually covered.
- To establish the relations between laws about animal cruelty and laws that protect animal feeders.
- Explain the significance behind the possible conditions with respect to the challenges over the outcome of justice.
- To underscore improvements in these laws in certain directions and why exactly such things need to take place.
1.5 Research Questions
The effective conditions that lie beneath specifying the exact answers, and what they actually mean or be defined by could be distilled into a research question to be answered fully and acceptably at the end of research. This may be shown as per the following:
What are the commonalities in laws against animal cruelty and those for protecting animal feeders in different countries, and what exact relations do they offer between each other?
By that specific notion, there are several research questions, which could be placed in terms of the following:
- What are the commonalities in laws against animal cruelty in different countries?
- What are the commonalities in laws for protecting animal feeders in different countries?
- Are there any relations between these two specific legal coverage points?
- What are the contexts and backgrounds under any observation in law in any area in any country?
- Do the current conditions and specifics regarding both these areas acquiring legal attention require improvements, and if so, what are they?
These sub-questions distill and shall guide the necessary steps central to the research. They will carry out the important points about gathering important information and data at different points laying the groundwork either primarily or secondarily.
2. Literature Review
This chapter of the dissertation shall specifically handle the secondary research, which is necessary to the lay the informational basis against which research could take place. A noticeable extent of this highlighting of secondary information of research has been indirectly established in the first chapter. However, in this specific case, the conditions relating to the research topic would see careful breaking down as per the requirements of research questions. The most important part involves all the different literature sources. As the name of the chapter implies, the point is to take individual literature sources and review them in terms of their information contribution and important to this particular research. Sauder (2000), for instance, presents animal cruelty laws are important in terms of legislature, law enforcement and society in terms of linking animal cruelty and its manifestations with cruelty and violence with those that occur between humans. This positions some points about thinking about the entire state of affairs, and would consequently guide the necessary information applied to this very research.
2.1 Overview of the laws against Animal Cruelty in Different Countries
Sauder (2000) does provide some exceptional groundwork in exactly specifying the need for laws punishing and classifying animal cruelty as an act of a felony crime. It states how observable linkages within empirical data have been noted when tying up data of animal cruelty, and other forms of interpersonal crimes. Nevertheless, in the suggestions to prevent animal cruelty, Sauder (2000) also offers important and distinctiverelating to enforcing and early intervention as necessary to prevent such a crime. Sorenson (2003) addresses the addressing and changes to such laws in the country of Canada, and reports on their opposition. The changes within the country’s Constitution recognized only some specific financial punishments in factory farms, as well as applying to the entire farm animals industry. Nevertheless, on the slight observation of the smallest of legal threats, the constitutive powers in such an industry acted out of bad faith in order to propose the changes’ ultimate rejection. In a developed nation like Canada, it argues for a recurrence of the possibilities that even the slightest concern about animal rights and welfare could potentially bring forward an outraged and damaging response.
Sorenson’s (2003) point is certainly reflective of the failure to extend the power and effectiveness of animal cruelty laws across countries for such a long time. Motivated by myopic human purposes, they represent important distinctions highlighted with high order inconsideration as to what extent animals experience suffering, exploitation and other far worse results. Cassuto & Eckhardt (2016) present the overview of the legal regimes under this particular focus of the law in the countries of Brazil and the United States. Both these countries recognize the philosophical and ideals based needs of protecting animals from cruelty. However, they are also consistently notable in protecting the case for farm animals as well as the farming industry to a significant extent. In that case, Mitchell (2011) showcases how the inhumane treatment persists in farming, and especially industrialized farming setting, which is also something that Cassuto & Eckhardt (2016) do not fail to note or present as a notable factor when all things are duly considered. Generally speaking, the political and economic pressures that both these regimes face directly result in highlighting and specifying the conditions related to overall ineffectiveness persisting with these laws in terms of getting the results.
In understanding as to how it exactly happens, one would only need to observe the discoveries presented by Mitchell (2011) who states the conditions of moral disengagement. Generally speaking, the author places these occurrences mainly because of the technological transformations or machine based industrialization of factory farming. As a result, the reported over 70% account of the extent of animal abuses that realistically take place generally happen in a highly impersonal and disengaged fashion. The economical relevance, according to Mitchell (2011), is something that also cannot be considered separate as it also shapes the public opinion and outlooks toward what exactly one is trying to attain or achieve. Favre (2016) offers the existence of a treaty to extend and manifest the possible results of animal cruelty. It is the author’s argument that without a proper international and holistic agreement between nations, laws that address this very topic cannot effectively provide with the desired results altogether.
In light of all the weaknesses and vulnerabilities that American laws present and uphold, it would become innately helpful to consolidate a conjunction with attaining specific ingredients from a separate culture and region, according to Chandola (2002). The author includes the concern with Eastern philosophical tenets of preventing animal cruelty and nonviolence. However, Chandola (2002) admits that it has not produced exactly positive countries in India where most of these philosophies and the school of thought emerges from. It all focuses upon how the upgradation of these ideas and perspectives would take place, and how one can disseminate in order to produce the most positive results. However, this same philosophical outlooks share some important realizations about cow protectionism and speciesism in India as shown by Narayanan (2018). The application is supposed to have some notable consequences upon the entire ecological balance and biodiversity.
Srinivasan (2013) highlights important delineations about the case of the impact of bio-politics in India and compares it with UK. By highlighting the understanding of dog control and care, it highlights how more-than-human geographies play functions in displaying animal rights and welfare. According to Srinivasan (2013), the relevant points about Indian case is that dogs share the same physical and ethical space, and legal, spatial and more-than-human geography result in some form of co-constitution. Although it does not necessarily cover any consequential aspects of welfare, rights in terms of letting those animals exercise their being constitutes some empathy and concerns as opposed to the masked and invisible euthanasia, neutering and breeding. The author argues that Western legal systems often favor the ‘agential subjectification’ of what makes these animals’ lives seem worthy to people. Narayanan’s (2018) case of cow protectionism seems absolutely relevant and applicable in this case wholeheartedly. It depicts how such developments could take place, and the species based costs could prove to be highly damaging to the circumstances.
This is the overview of laws that evidently present support and consolidate the necessary viewpoints on animal cruelty laws. The complex underlying teachings and concepts provide important sources of reflection moving forward.
2.2 Overview of Laws for protecting Animal Feeders in Different Countries
Unlike animal cruelty laws, it is important to recall that the concept of legally protecting animal feeders came from India. In the previous chapter, there was very less occurrence in terms of transposing that law in the United States specifically. Kelch (2012) provides with enough backgrounds and conditions into explaining why the literal absence of legal codes provisioning for protecting animal feeders. This is primarily based upon the conditions of what relationship animals in the public space have with the humans existing in the public space. In Western countries, the relationship is based upon executing public works and agencies to generally remove prominent proximity between animals and humans wherein both exist freely (Kelch, 2012). As a result, feeders in their general sense is not always found in these specific jurisdictions. Donham et al. (2007) provides necessary reasons in order to indicate what exactly constitutes the non-inclusion of human feeders. In general, animals who are ‘strays’ in public human spaces also become a prominent source of disease and other forms of harm, such as going feral or violent. In Srinivasan (2013), this point has already been very prominently portrayed and presented, as humans attacking and harming stray animals tend to have an exchange basis in relationship. This point is quite specifically relevant in order to properly understand why Donham et al. (2007) argues is important for maintaining physical separation between human society and animals.
Radford (2001) also supports this viewpoint while noting the general sources of disease as a very harmful consequence of having stray animals exist by themselves in human public spaces. Often, these tend to become sources of some strain of disease sources, which tend to be critical and challenging in the form of outbreaks. However, Radford (2001) argues in presenting with the delineations that important consequences of such laws preventing exist in jurisdictions where such animals actually exist, and some people take the initiative to feed them. However, the general conditions of social acceptance often implies some damaging scenarios, for which the short end of suffering, pain and death almost always end up being those animals. Kolbe (2013) generally idealizes the potential connections between the circumstances, and the determining of fact that ‘concentrated animal feeding operations’ in the United States farm factories generally imply results that seem to share with normative public feeding as well. The author specifically ties the reason in terms of the state of conditions, which persist in those factories, and as time goes on, the conditions only worsen with time (Kolbe, 2013). The conditions of laws not actually intervening and enforcing the conditions as highlighted in light of the umbrella of animal cruelty legal formula.
As pointed with Kolbe (2013), the conditions associated feeding animals often correlates with concerns and instances that almost always imply collective undertakings and circumstances. Centner (2006) points to the fact about ‘nuisances’ to neighbors, which ultimately motivates taking damaging measures affecting the animals. It is primarily because the existence of such concerns are often associated and directed with the aim of provisioning food implies the persistence of such animals in neighborhood public places. Associations with affective negative implications could mean probable retaliation against both the animals and the people feeding them (Centner, 2006). In the case of the former, familiar conditions of ways to hurt animals constituting as criminal offenses have been put into statues and penal codes. However, the latter aspect is something that has no direct precedents in terms of directly provisioning necessary legal recourses in almost all of country jurisdictions, including United States. India only addresses this condition separately with the help of animal welfare agencies issued identification, which do not actually deter measures for harm directly.
2.3 The Relations offered in between Laws against Animal Cruelty and Those that protect Animal Feeders
Li & Davey (2013) offers some helpful outlooks in order to establish what exact viewpoint must persist in terms of delivering the relations between these two law areas covered. The point specifically remains of close association with considering those that stand against animal cruelty as constitutive in a basic actionable composition of statutes. Primarily speaking, Li & Davey (2013) identifies that laws standing against animal cruelty first generally makes the act of such ‘cruelty’ illegal. This associates with important philosophical and scientific concepts as humans in modern society are better able to define and consolidate pain, suffering and other important feelings, which such organisms could potentially experience. These generally set that showing cruelty against animals is punishable under the ‘normative’ conditions of ethics and morality; however, some notable exceptions notwithstanding (Li & Davey, 2013). Satz (2009) seemingly consolidates and idealizes the viewpoints with the help of which animals in general appear as vulnerable subjects. Their treatment from humans require exceptional consideration that goes beyond what would be considered as normal behavior. Satz (2009) highlights how exactly the position with respect to treating animals like property, arranging them under impersonal hierarchy result in some specific interest-convergences on the whole.
It is why the notion of animal feeding and laws to actually protect such people is legally exclusionary. The points provided almost always end up providing reflections about the state of affairs and the possible conditions being represented and delivered. Satz (2009) highlighted the conditions wherein possible aspects of protecting animal feeding ultimately presents a state of contradiction from which proper solution is hard to come by. The outcome of feeding animals generally relate to harms caused by a lack of regulation becoming manifested and extensive, as highlighted by both Srinivasan (2013) and Kolbe (2013). Both these literature sources, which are starkly different from one another and yet seemingly produce contrasting outcomes upon the larger human society if feeding is allowed to take place without any regulation. However, Arluke (2006) indicates that no serious practical suppression is not actually happening in terms of legal and judicial actions against both these contrasting scenarios. These aspects are all highly relevant and consequential in presenting with the different scenarios, reflecting this specific point of view.
It depicts that the inherent ways in which the case of animal feeding impacts the more expansive focus of animal cruelty is something that is very contradictory. However, if one goes through comprehending the indications provided by Arluke (2006), it is evident that those outcomes reveal different occurrences in different countries and their jurisdictions. As the author points out, the question with presenting and comprehending appropriate outcomes are all consistently responsible due to conditions, circumstances and forces, which result in an environment composed of various domains. Ascione & Shapiro (2009) present that cultural and social trends and circumstances are evidently relevant in how the approach towards exist in the juxtaposition of a rather consistent outlook in terms of the entire state of animal cruelty. This is extremely important in pointing out what the overall outcomes could potentially be directly in terms of the results of the conditions. This would result some consistencies as showcased in the overall consolidated legal statutes and composed sections, but would differ on a general basis.
White (2009) provides enough indications pointing to the facts and relations as to what extent of conditions relate to both addressing animal cruelty and protecting animal feeders in countries like the United States. This position is highly effective and associative in with the legal status provided with ‘companion animals’, and the straightforward delineations of responsibilities entailing that specific position at large. In that sense, White (2009) provides outlooks and conditions that come straight from the possible harm or suffering that animals could endure in such a position, and what legal functions could be made possible with the exercise in attaining justice. Robertson (2015) presents and consolidates important viewpoints as to how differently the conditions of sociocultural forces extend the presence of stray animals in a country like India. In terms of such conditions, companion animals also apply to such scenarios, however, under far less co-dependence and manifestations of direct care. Most of these cases find animal feeders proliferating at the social level in juxtaposition with animals, as opposed to direct owners (Robertson, 2015). The laws against the umbrella of animal cruelty aim to cover the gaps of possibilities, which would harm the animals at large and not associate direct with the feeders directly. There are other penal codes in terms of person-to-person offences, which could evidently cover such grounds. These are the relations for laws protecting animal feeders with the laws against animal cruelty wherein the former directly falls under the concerns of the latter, and other external factors highlight how they would be formed and consolidated.
2.4 Current Conditions requiring Legal Changes and Improvements in the Future
It is possible to consolidate the fact or the outlook wherein the conditions of legal conditions standing against animal cruelty and protecting animal feeders are not producing desired results. It is egregiously true for those that target overall animal populations in every form, which is perhaps best explained by World Wildlife Fund’s (2020) Living Planet Report. It highlights that wildlife across the world has recorded a staggering 68% loss in terms of whole populations since the year 1970. The implications of this case is wide scale biodiversity loss all around, and the potential enhancement of exerting more damages to the nature compared to what could be considered at any time before. This specific point was already introduced by Sauder (2000), and produced some evident results in terms of presenting changes to existing legal codes. The general detail in that sense primarily dealt with problems in terms of enforcing interventions for evidently preventing possible occurrences of crimes in these conditions to take actually place.
Harrop (2011) presents with helpful viewpoints, which directly portray and relate to the needs under animal welfare as a whole need to be constituted under widespread environmental conservation. This is important in terms of extending and painting the scenario facing the human society at this current point in time. Things shall require proper consolidation and extension of viewpoints, which would point to the exact achievement of goals, and their potential circumstances all around. Leahy (2011) also presents and consolidates some important conditions and factors, which portray and consolidate some important results to be present altogether. These tend to point out in delivering how important to address large scale tolerance of animal cruelty that is actually accepted quite widely, and as normal in human society. This argument specifically associates with such viewpoints in terms of animal farming. Leahy (2011) goes as far as to argue that justified treatment in these industries and companies under the laws underscore the existing problems that directly lead to the perpetuation of animal cruelty in its many forms.
In terms of all the scenarios, Gacek (2019) presents some legitimately interesting and relevant positions with understanding the existence of animal cruelty in human society in the first place. These points generally highlight some interesting points related directly with its large scale conditions, in terms of certain conditions related to Leahy (2011). In presenting the possible reasons, there are quite some evident conditions and outcomes directly related with evolving conditions of dissociation, which occur among most people. Mitchell’s (2011) highlights and outlooks relating to these conditions and circumstances all present and consolidate this viewing dissociation that people go through when it comes to the concerns about animal rights and welfare. These constructed factors and persistent conditions would need to improve by evidently changing the circumstances all across the board.
As a result, the review of literature as presented above all consolidate and presented helpful outlooks with potential results and outcomes to be presented. However, to actually get to the correct results, it is important to present the conditions that relate with primary research. They would present with the outcomes in different ways, albeit in connection to these results at large and what they say in terms of animal cruelty laws and laws protecting animal feeders.
This chapter generally associates with the methods and processes utilized and implemented for the purposes of presenting with the results about primary research. The end goal is all about constructing an appropriate and advantageous research design, which would satisfy all the necessary points and provide the necessary results (Mohajan, 2018). However, as is the case with specific research, contextual and topic associated relations are important to present and reflect upon at large. The case with the differing cases of laws against animal cruelty, and those which apparently protect animal feeders has been explored with secondary research into literature (Jamshed, 2014). All these points are highly relevant in terms of methodology being related to philosophical outlooks and conditions related and presented to provide the appropriate results at large.
3.1 Research Philosophy
Philosophy in research is mainly concerned with presenting and associating with certain factors and conditions about the establishment of knowledge. However, speaking about research study as a consistently occurring phenomenon, there are evidently two distinct avenues in which philosophy could potentially apply (Fletcher, 2017). These include epistemology, or knowing some occurrence to be true, and doxology, or believing some phenomenon or occurrence to be true (Mohajan, 2018). The subtle differences that exist between the actions and outlooks of knowing against believing generate evidently four distinct philosophical points relevant in research (Jamshed, 2014). These include the polar opposite in positivism and interpretivism, and more combined and factual pragmatism and realism (Fletcher, 2017). Among them, pragmatic philosophy is the one that should apply in this research because it confirms to associate with both interpretivist and positivist viewpoints. Given that the underlying point about this topic relates to contradiction of the tensions and contradictions in the treatment of animals and the role of humanity (Jamshed, 2014), there is a legitimate case that could be made in terms of why this philosophical road is appropriate, especially in terms of all the applicable choices.
3.2 Research Approach
Approach refers to the plans and procedures mentioned under the possible factors and circumstances on how to exactly realize the research. However, these generally depend upon the choice of approach being consequential to research upon the two major areas of allocating different interests, which are consistent for the entire research (Fletcher, 2017). These include both the factors of data collection and analysis respectively. This researcher has selected that for data collection, the approach chosen is inherently qualitative in nature (Jamshed, 2014). On the other hand, data analysis shall involve the choice of approach in terms of inductive viewpoint (Mohajan, 2018). The pattern that this choice specifically offers is to draw upon real life occurrences, and go to generalize them in terms of getting the necessary results.
3.3 Research Strategy and Design
This specific point related to the case of strategy reflects the direct answer to the question how exactly the method of research shall take place. The strategy for conducting research in this case shall be primarily based upon live face-to-face interviews. Questions shall be constructed upon the viewpoints of the main research questions (Fletcher, 2017). The researcher would, however, prepare and conduct the interview in a largely semi-structured format. This is because of the different variations of answers of what might come forth. Moreover, openings must be kept intact in order to exactly extent and manifest to possible outcomes in terms of variabilities and tangential discussions and narration, which would only serve in making the results robust and encompassing (Jamshed, 2014). This research design would then conduct comparisons and contrasts between the data that is obtained in the analysis and discussion part of the research.
3.4 Sampling and Data Collection
The sampling in proper ways of conducting interviews for the sake of primary research evidently took some time. This was mainly because the sampling criteria for participating in research was associations with the legal community as well as with animal rights and welfare, which constituted important reflections and data inputs being put in by all participants who were involved (Mohajan, 2018). The sample size ultimately ended up being 10 in number, and this researcher collected data with the help of semi-structured interviews. These generally took place with the help of video conferencing app, which also was attached with an available feature of recording every single interviews in full (Glesne, 2016). Transcripts from interviews formulated the major conditions related to the concepts of the circumstances and conditions (Fletcher, 2017), which required to be conducted or take place in terms of presenting the necessary results.
3.5 Data Analysis
Analysis of data upon this case generally takes place in terms of an inductive approach, as already noted before. However, this shall mainly manifest with careful discursive comparative analyses, which shall relate with different aspects and factors (Fletcher, 2017). Such considerations include analyzing data in terms of all the contrasts and differences, which occur conjunctively upon points in terms of recurring interviews conducted by this researcher (Mohajan, 2018). Furthermore, analysis could directly associate with relating with results, which have been covered by literature previously and quite prominently. These factors generally translate and associate with consolidating positions in terms of information based relevance (Glesne, 2016), which would generate the results in terms of correctively answering the research questions.
3.6 Ethical Considerations
Regarding the ethics of primary research, the methodology also contains very prominent claim that all forms of proper consent with respect to actions and decisions have been taken by this researcher. More so than that, it is quite noticeably apparent that the results reached are all reflective of the conditions, which are relevant in terms of how exactly they are presented (Glesne, 2016). Maximum extent of removing bias, other conditions and factors related to overall answers and responses are consequential in terms of factors and circumstances are also important ethical considerations (Glesne, 2016). Furthermore, application and enforcement of governing institution’s guidelines and statutes all have been followed to an extensive extent in this research.
4. Analysis and Discussion
This chapter is finally focused upon delivering the results, which would emerge and develop in terms of all the possible analyses taking place. This would mean that the data collected primarily from interviews with animal cruelty legal experts would be presented, analyzed and discussed. Moreover, the questions about how exactly they would be delivered remains a very prominent part of the entire affair. Generally, this researcher would provide anecdotes as quotes from the participants in light of some context, which would be explained before or after. It is done for providing levity and highlighting how the manifestation of knowledge toward answering the research questions would actually take place. Additionally, there is also a very careful consideration of linking the outlooks and view from interviews with possible knowledge bases with literature.
4.1 Commonalities in Animal Cruelty Laws
As per the literature addressing this question, there was evidently some notable similarities in different countries, primary which involved the centrality of animal rights and welfare. These aspects are highly relevant and consequential in terms of consolidating the experiences and feelings faced by animals, in the face of what normative treatment by humans actually state them to be (Sauder, 2000). Animal cruelty laws are inherently based upon the fact of actively commissioning aspects of causing the suffering and pain of animals with the legal statute appearing as this unequivocal statement in most countries. So, it makes sense in terms of seeking the appropriate responses whether law statutes, which prominently outlaws acts of animal cruelty (Cassuto & Eckhardt, 2016), are actually applicable in terms of delivering the appropriate results.
My own opinion is it is exactly not the case. Even though it may appear as unequivocal, you need to observe the fact that actively causing the pain and suffering needs to be the central cause. So, legal battles end up proving whether that is the case in most instances. Moreover, the definitions of causing pain and suffering in animals, and their produced evidence are some different things that need to be addressed by the courts.
As is evident from this response, the laws of animal cruelty appears only to provide unequivocal nature of formulating this legal code among countries (Sauder, 2000). Taking into consideration the Indian law, there have been many different changes, which have required repeated amendments to be put in since its original point (Cassuto & Eckhardt, 2016). This was explained very helpfully by another interview participant:
India’s animal cruelty law is certainly one of the most vulnerable things I have witnessed in my career. It’s an issue that is very regularly politicized, and in spite of so many changes, they end up continuing to be ineffective in producing the results that they exactly want to achieve.
Obviously, the conditions of amendments are also commonalities, which are shared by other countries as well, most prominent amongst which involve the United States (Favre, 2016). Nevertheless, what the literature produced as better effectiveness in the animal cruelty laws of that country rests with its multi-level state of jurisdiction at federal, state and local levels (Sauder, 2000). Actionable evidences produce the desired results exactly in the way as they appear.
Moreover, there are quite a few cases of consolidating conditions and circumstances relating with commonalities in terms of cruelty laws mentioning specific offenses on a scenario basis (Srinivasan, 2013). These points are all relevant in pointing out and presenting the circumstances, which are both shared among countries, as well as differ to a highly variable extent altogether (Favre, 2016). All such points are very carefully manifested along the lines of this interview response at large:
Specifically, mentioning what constitutes as offenses falling under animal cruelty is very important. The point about legally proving that the animal suffered and experienced great pain to it personal self of being is a hard thing. As a result, specifically indicating actionable offenses toward all or specific animals indicates increasing complexities of the entire affair.
The commonalities all reflect closer abstraction to what the concepts and ideas of animal rights or welfare say (Srinivasan, 2013). Nevertheless, the conditions that could be applied in getting the results of wide scale prevention of animal cruelty remains a mixed affair.
4.2 Commonalities in Laws protecting Animal Feeders
The laws for protecting animal feeders, however, had very infrequent occurrences among the different countries addressed and analyzed with the help of literature. Even in India, where this point was supposed to emerge, the conditions apply to ‘stray’ animals living within the human society, albeit in a largely human dependent fashion (Kelch, 2012). This makes them apparently open to invite violent attacks and other results of harm (Centner, 2006). As a result, the connections with the umbrella laws of animal cruelty all evidently apply to this specific scenario.
India has a lot of stray animals, and that’s one of the reasons that some people want to help them by feeding, while some violently antagonize them. It creates a scenario in which requiring law to apply to such scenarios must take place.
Furthermore, participants all agree that preventing animals, like cats and dogs, to suffer from the danger of human proximity requires public works to ensure their safety (Kelch, 2012). However, there are several legislative caveats, which ultimately lay down the ineffectiveness of such processes (Centner, 2006). These points are all inherently true for the sake of provisioning the necessary reflection as it would be required to portray attainable results and outcomes. As one participant noted:
Even in the US, you will find animal care facilities have reached to points of being overcrowded. Moreover, owners do not want pets from such places, instead opting for fancy pet shops. As a result, specific points of blockages and pouring through persists in these circumstances.
These circumstances create some important problems as a result of which maximum of such animals end up getting euthanized. The conditions in India, as a result, involves widespread ineffectiveness of such public services, and the existence of local animal feeders persist. It offers stark differences in comparison to a country like the United States (Kolbe, 2013). Nevertheless, even India does not have a specific law, which protects the person and the interests of animal feeders, whatever they might be (Kolbe, 2013). This is true except if the feeders sought to actually harm the animals, which is an actionable offense under the law.
Remember that India does not have some specific law protecting those who feed animals. Only some welfare organizations offer identification, which makes such individuals their indirect affiliates. The extent to which they actually go into preventing negative scenarios is truly debatable.
As a result, it is a very legitimate state of circumstances reflecting and presenting the lack of explicit presence as the major commonality for this kind of law among different countries.
4.3 Relations between these two Legal Areas
The literature in this case did offer many valuable and important conditions, which straightforwardly offered some important reflections. One is obviously the case wherein the laws of animal cruelty happen to specify the conditions and circumstances of actual crime in terms of official codes directives or precedents tend to associate as an umbrella term (Li & Davey, 2013). This evidently leaves the room open in terms of protecting animal feeders, which evidently justifies why they are separately considered as separate legal statutes existing (Robertson, 2015). This is what a large section of the participants feel about their relations.
Protecting animal feeders, as you phrase it, can be covered with existing animal cruelty laws. If there is no legal wrongdoing, any individual could continue serving and benefitting animals.
However, in inquiring about the possibilities associated with many ways in which other individuals could harm animals through some illegal means like poisoning, and the feeders by legal measures implicatively, the responses were more mixed (Li & Davey, 2013). The most common among these were associated with the fact that it was a policing matter not exactly a legal or judicial one (Robertson, 2015). Moreover, these responses all commonly believed that positive results would come about through judicial processes, the true extent of such results is generally not possible.
It’s generally not a legal matter, and depends upon the police or any other enforcing agency or organization. But, I believe that correct results and justice focused results would emerge and result with proper timing.
Additionally, there are also laws that protect human-human interactions very specifically, as well as by covering a lot of detailed legal grounds in different countries (Li & Davey, 2013). This point certainly provides the infallibility of the animal cruelty results, and there are certainly contextual and background problems exist (Robertson, 2015), which need to be presented and discussed consequently.
4.4 Contextual and Background Conditions that explain the Successes and/or Failures of these Laws
In analyzing and discussing any legal case, it is greatly important to explain the contexts and background conditions, which would inform successes and failures of the laws that exist. The general discussions upon these cases often end up portraying and highlighting some important details about the extent of exclusions that happen in existing animal cruelty laws in different countries (World Wildlife Fund, 2020). This is most notably associated with animal farming, which have escaped most of the attention in terms of the underlying conditions that exact and influence/impact the extent to which animal cruelty is allowed to take place.
The animal farming industry is the main reason why animal cruelty laws have failed for the most part in most countries. It is the major reason why the volume of animal cruelty realistically exists to such a significant extent, and there is little to no actions against its occurrence in actuality.
The conditions in portraying the results lie in the existence of visible dissociation, which public suffers in front of their needs (World Wildlife Fund, 2020). Satisfying those needs is the main state of concern for the animal farming industry (Harrop, 2011). This results in a state of social contract with the wider public to exist in exchange of satisfying the high share of needs, which animals generally provide across the board.
The fact that society depends upon inconsiderate and innately inhumane animal farming states more about the conditions that exist as of this point in time.
This point as detailed by a participant certainly paints the contexts, which remain consistent in almost all populous countries across the world (Harrop, 2011). Because of that very point one can see how the transposing of cruelty is still normalized to an extent (World Wildlife Fund, 2020), and the animal cruelty laws remain largely based upon suffering from enforcing ineffectiveness as well as general non-intervention.
4.5 Possible Improvements that could be proposed in the context of These Laws
The improvements in literature highlight the importance of composing the laws, which would explicitly provide greater powers and abilities to enforce and intervene (Harrop, 2011). Along these lines, participants tend to delineate and specify the possible conditions alongside this point:
It is evident that animal cruelty laws need to be better implementable by the authorities. However, the conditions are often related to regarding what public opinion is present.
The above point is relevant because careful conditions and factors all point to the fact legal statute consolidations largely depend upon what public opinion apply to it. This is highly relevant in terms of provisioning necessary outlooks and understandings, which apply to these cases and conditions across the board (Gacek, 2019). Nevertheless, attaining public interests and favors as a developmental improvements speak by themselves. These conditions all portray such factors to be applied.
Turning tide of public environment about animals must take place as widely as possible.
However, important positions and circumstances need to take place in relation to these conditions need to be addressed by the animal farming directly (Gacek, 2019). Interventions through regulation must be used to produce results in a space where the cruelty takes place most widely.
All the indications related to the points highlighted and portrayed in relation to laws specify consistently within the context of animal cruelty in its basic form remains consistently among many countries. However, the details evidently show variations quite widely as many conditional occurrences are addressed in terms of any kind of legal addressing. The laws for protecting animal feeders, however, remain a matter that is derived from other laws, including animal cruelty. Such statutes seek to protect the negative outcomes and results, which may directly result from it. In that sense, animal cruelty laws formulate the extensive conditions, which result in possible grounds for protecting animal feeders with legal means. However, contextual information show the apparent failures of these laws alongside others that address animals in society and the environment. The improvements largely relate with points about extending the conditions of enforcing and interventions as well as enforcing, applying to animal farming industry directly, but having public opinion is also very important in these cases. Future considerations could largely address the points that concern overall factors, which would explore other forms of animal laws, addressing other topics and/or grounds of challenging. Additionally, other approaches to analyzing them must also be properly explored and consolidated. These would directly contribute towards holistic recognition and possibilities improvement about these concerns at large.
Arluke, A. (2006). Just a dog: Understanding animal cruelty and ourselves. Temple University Press.
Ascione, F. R., & Shapiro, K. (2009). People and animals, kindness and cruelty: Research directions and policy implications. Journal of Social Issues, 65(3), 569-587.
Cassuto, D. N., & Eckhardt, C. (2016). Don’t be cruel (anymore): a look at the animal cruelty regimes of the United States and Brazil with a call for a new animal welfare agency. BC Envtl. Aff. L. Rev., 43, 1.
Centner, T. J. (2006). Nuisances from animal feeding operations: Reconciling agricultural production and neighboring property rights. Drake J. Agric. L., 11, 5.
Chandola, M. V. (2002). Dissecting American animal protection law: Healing the wounds with animal rights and Eastern enlightenment. Wis. Envtl. LJ, 8, 3.
Donham, K. J., Wing, S., Osterberg, D., Flora, J. L., Hodne, C., Thu, K. M., & Thorne, P. S. (2007). Community health and socioeconomic issues surrounding concentrated animal feeding operations. Environmental health perspectives, 115(2), 317-320.
Favre, D. (2016). An international treaty for animal welfare. In Animal Law and Welfare-International Perspectives (pp. 87-106). Springer, Cham.
Fletcher, A. J. (2017). Applying critical realism in qualitative research: methodology meets method. International journal of social research methodology, 20(2), 181-194.
Gacek, J. (2019). Confronting Animal Cruelty: Understanding Evidence of Harm Towards Animals. Man. LJ, 42, 315.
Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson. One Lake Street, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.
Harrop, S. (2011). Climate change, conservation and the place for wild animal welfare in international law. Journal of Environmental Law, 23(3), 441-462.
Jamshed, S. (2014). Qualitative research method-interviewing and observation. Journal of basic and clinical pharmacy, 5(4), 87.
Kelch, T. G. (2012). A short history of (mostly) Western animal law: Part II. Animal L., 19, 347.
Kolbe, E. A. (2013). Won’t You Be My Neighbor: Living with Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Iowa L. Rev., 99, 415.
Leahy, C. L. (2011). Large-Scale Farmed Animal Abuse and Neglect: Law and Its Enforcement. Journal of Animal Law & Ethics, 63(4), 1-46.
Li, P. J., & Davey, G. (2013). Culture, reform politics, and future directions: A review of China’s animal protection challenge. Society & Animals, 21(1), 34-53.
Mitchell, L. (2011). Moral disengagement and support for nonhuman animal farming. Society & Animals, 19(1), 38-58.
Mohajan, H. K. (2018). Qualitative research methodology in social sciences and related subjects. Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, 7(1), 23-48.
Narayanan, Y. (2018). Cow Protectionism and Bovine Frozen-Semen Farms in India: Analyzing Cruelty, Speciesism, and Climate Change. Society & Animals, 26(1), 13-33.
Radford, M. (2001). Animal welfare law in Britain: regulation and responsibility. Oxford University Press.
Robertson, I. A. (2015). Animals, welfare and the law: Fundamental principles for critical assessment. Routledge.
Satz, A. B. (2009). Animals as vulnerable subjects: Beyond interest-convergence, hierarchy, and property. Animal L., 16, 65.
Sauder, J. G. (2000). Enacting and enforcing felony animal cruelty laws to prevent violence against humans. Animal L., 6, 1-21.
Sorenson, J. (2003). Some Strange Things Happening in Our Country’: Opposing Proposed Changes in Anti-Cruelty Laws in Canada. Social & Legal Studies, 12(3), 377-402.
Srinivasan, K. (2013). The biopolitics of animal being and welfare: dog control and care in the UK and India. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(1), 106-119.
White, S. (2009). Companion animals: Members of the family or legally discarded objects. UNSWLJ, 32, 852. World Wildlife Fund. (2020). Living Planet Report 2020. Retrieved from https://f.hubspotusercontent20.net/hubfs/4783129/LPR/PDFs/ENGLISH-FULL.pdf.