Proviso Number 1: Sensibility towards non-human animals is one of the most positive aspects of contemporary society. Notions like animal rights may be philosophically suspect (which does not mean that there should not be laws protecting non-human animals and provisions for their welfare), but concern and campaign for non-human beasts is a sign of hope, showing that our moral juices may still flow in the right direction. While prophets of doom may decry modern society and its values, this aspect is surely laudable, particularly in relation to the insensitivity of the past.

Proviso Number 2: This writing is based on a number of generalisations. For instance, I use the term ‘animal lovers’ in a careless way to mean anyone who evidences the slightest vibes of compassion towards non-human animals. Most of what I write does not apply to those who adopt a more consistent attitude; a thorough commitment to non-human creatures. Indeed, the ones belonging to the latter category which I have recently come across, harbour feelings and thoughts on the case that I discuss that are fundamentally different from those that I criticise. This article is therefore not referring to them.

So the media and the police managed to turn the killings of a number of animals into a show.

The ingredients are all there; wicked acts, a sick yet crafty brain, bits and pieces of information to the public which both raise the readers’ anger and encourage them to speculate on the identity of the culprit.

Bloggers have had a field-day. Most have demanded the pound of flesh. The offender should be brought to justice and punished severely, with some even suggesting that he (the assumption is that he is male) be made to undergo the same ordeal as his four-legged victims.

That the person in question is probably mentally unstable and may require assistance is a thought that does not cross the mind of many

That the person in question is probably mentally unstable and hence may require assistance; that this should make him the object of our compassion and, I dare say, love (which does not entail that he shouldn’t be locked up if he is deemed to constitute a threat to himself or to others) is a thought that does not cross the mind of many who have prominently worn their love of non-human creatures on their sleeves.

As befits the incarceration-sick society we are, the only way in which we seem able to deal with deviants is by calling on the State to flex its muscles. The contradiction between loving non-rational animals and hating a creature that cannot use properly its rationality is not perceived.

But then this is not the only contradiction one comes across. Rightly and fittingly, the welfare of non-human animals has become a major concern.

Yet, come the first boat load of immigrants, such sensibility will be conspicuous by its absence, with some even doubting the desirability of guaranteeing to these unfortunates the rights most of us believe that a person should enjoy for the simple fact that he is human.

Browse through some news item describing the increasing number of those who are living under the threshold of poverty and the majority of comments would be that these are themselves to blame for their misfortunes. Have a politician hinting at the possibility of increasing benefits to single-mothers (a category which is highly prone to falling beneath this threshold) and he will risk losing the seat come the next general election.

Not to mention prisoners and other bogey categories.

This notwithstanding, one might think there is nothing extraordinary about the situation. Moral contradictions existed at all times and ages. To give a concrete example, in the Middle Ages and in the early modern period members of the Order of Saint John were famed both for the loving manner in which they looked after the sick, including the poorest ones, and for the ferocity with which they butchered ‘infidels’.)

Yet, I dare toy with another suggestion. It’s relatively easy to love non-human animals.

They are vulnerable, nice and affectionate. They are (mistakenly) thought by many to be able to offer unconditional love (a silly idea; only some humans – rare specimens – may love unconditionally, i.e. love others for whom they harbour no affection, of whom they are not afraid and on whom they do not depend).

Humans on the other hand may be markedly different. They have a will of their own. They might not fit the niche we would want to assign them.

They could harbour different thoughts about what is moral, valuable and worthy of pursuit in life (and hence challenge our outlook and assumptions).

Some may also make us aware of the fact that their misfortunes are tied to our well-being, and hence to social and political injustices from which we are benefiting. Many of us would not be excited by the prospect.

Tibbles on the other hand, will never dare as much.