The movements advocating for the rights of non-human animals have their origins in ancient times, albeit their relevance in the present day. Given that relevance, and since Victimology typically centers solely on human experiences, there's the need for an approach that extends beyond humanity to recognize victimization's broader dimensions. With that in mind, this chapter focuses on dismantling the anthropocentric perspective on crime, emphasizing the crucial need to extend consideration to non-human animals as well. By challenging the status quo, it aims to prompt a shift toward incorporating non-human animals into our comprehension of criminality, and, therefore, advocates for the recognition of the rights of non-human animals. In summary, this chapter argues for a more comprehensive understanding of crime, that encompasses both human and non-human experiences, and highlights the importance of studying this type of violence within the field of Criminology, benefiting not only the scientific community but also extending support to victims who, for a long time, have been overlooked.
TopIntroduction
The movements advocating for non-human animals' rights have ancient origins (Beirne, 1995; Cao, 2013); however, their relevance still stands. The interaction between humans and non-human animals, continuous throughout human history (Fellenz, 2010), has played a crucial role in the evolution and progression of human societies and civilization. Despite this historical significance, the interplay between humans and non-human animals is intricate, ambiguous, and often challenging and frustrating (Bekoff, 2007).
Over the course of history, human treatment of non-human animals has predominantly been about one-sided dynamics, therefore being characterized by absolute control, dominance, and disposal. Non-human animals always found themselves not only in inferior or subordinate positions but also devoid of any substantial status or power when compared to humans, be it on an individual basis or as groups. In the abstract, spiritual, and metaphysical realms, when examining different cultures and societies through the lens of language, law, religion, philosophy, and other cultural creations, remnants of this tendency are still noticeable (Cao, 2013).
Philosophers have contemplated the differences between humans and non-human animals since the dawn of human civilization. However, until recent times, few philosophers had extensively explored the moral status of non-human animals. Most classical philosophers addressing non-human animals were primarily concerned with highlighting the disparities between them and humans, viewing non-human animals as subordinate or inferior and thus denying them any moral status - a concept known as moral anthropocentrism (Cao, 2013). This philosophy places human interests at the centre of the moral universe, excluding other beings (Steiner, 2008, 2010). It is crucial to highlight that this perspective prevailed in mainstream thought and orthodoxy for millennia until it was contested in the latter half of the twentieth century. Moral anthropocentrism has encountered significant challenges in recent decades within the domain of environmental philosophy and animal ethics (Beirne, 1999; Cazaux, 1999).
Present-day animal philosophy is marked by ethical reflections and advocacy, evolving from an initial emphasis on anti-cruelty attitudes to a subsequent insistence on rights or liberation, and, more recently, a renewed interest in compassionate sympathy (Beirne, 1995; Cao, 2013). The majority of contemporary writings about animals scrutinize the conventional moral philosophy that prioritizes humans over animals (Cao, 2013).
Despite significant differences in thinking and ways of life among people from various cultures and societies, at least one commonality exists in their treatment and attitude toward non-human animals. Language, more than just a symbol or means of communication, reflects an attitude, a way of thinking and behaving towards non-human animals in mainstream cultures. We often speak as if humans were not animals and as if all other animals were unintelligent, violent, and devoid of feelings (Cao, 2013). Furthermore, our language, as rightly pointed out, denies the harm that humans routinely inflict on other animals (Dunayer, 2001). Language serves both to reveal and expose, as well as to disguise and hide (Cao, 2013).
Similarly, religion has long exerted a powerful influence on shaping beliefs about human-animal relationships, influencing perceptions, values, and practices in some particular ways (Linzey, 2009). Although ancient religious traditions have sought to be respectful to non-human animals, they also harbour powerful negative attitudes, including human-centricity and human superiority. These ideas and teachings are deeply ingrained, permeating everyday lives, legal frameworks, and social institutions in our societies. Violence towards non-human animals remains a significant unresolved issue of social justice in today's world, and, regrettably, that means that there has been a discernible increase in animal abuse, signalling a growing prevalence (Cao, 2013).