Principle of Liberty or Harm Principle?

Abstract

In the framework of Western democracies, the movement for the prevention of cruelty to animals has been seen, ever since it dawned, as a lobby-a pressure group born to defend some spiritual inclinations, or subsidiary preferences, of some members of the political community. In the first case, the most suitable comparison is with a religious sect, or with a moralizing organization; in the second one, with some association of a more or less corporate nature. Still now, every time an opportunity for debate arises, people take care to present impartially the relevant views; here the animals' advocates, there the butchers, the furriers, the experimenters. In the democratic game, every lobby must get its due. This does not happen by accident. There is in our societies a particular class of criminal actions called It has been noticed l that, since murder, e. g., is also an offense against morals, such a definition cannot be interpreted but in a restrictive sense, and that offenses are therefore only those which impair nothing but morals. In fact, it is to the absence of an injured party that the other relevant expression, is related. Adultery, sodomy, incest and prostitution are the main examples; yet, the class also includes nonsexual offenses. One of these is cruelty to animals. The view that the rationale of the law could be, in addition to the protection ofone individual from another, also the punishment of moral wickedness, has been called moralism.2 Henceforth, I shall use the term morality to refer to the corpus of beliefs and customs that are allegedly impaired by the crimes and that legal moralism aims to defend; and the term morals to mean what is covered by the laws intended to protect one individual from another. In this sense, rape can be defined as a crime against morals, while homosexual relations between consenting adults can be-and often is-considered a crime against morality. Legal moralism, usually endorsed by conservatives, is criticized by liberals. The view that it may be possible to defend by legal, or else social, sanctions the conformity to a particular code ofbehavior that is shared by the majority at a certain time seems unacceptable to those for whom the memory of the Inquisition is raised by the contemporary revival of religious fanaticism. Thus, if the against animals fall within the victimless crimes, i. e., the against morality, the reaction against the movement for the defense of animals becomes explainable. The tolerance of the lobby is acceptable, or better, right, in a liberal society. If, however, the new sect becomes too aggressive, and