Ethics involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct, and is concerned with concepts of value.
Ethics investigates the questions “What is the best way for people to live?” and “What actions are right or wrong in particular circumstances?”
In practice, ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality, by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime.
The case at issue deals with justice and crime.
In the recent court case of dog abuser and torturer Duanying Chen, who pleaded guilty and was given a light sentence, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Brian Hill made a critical mistake.
The same mistake was made by retired Judge Frank Ochoa in his apologia for Hill.
First, there is a terrible ethical flaw in Hills’s decision. In all instances in which human interaction — good or bad — is concerned, most people, including judges, fail to take into account ethical analysis. Hill and Ochoa were both guilty of that failure.
Ethics is a guide to the creation of that which is a good. It also aids us in determining the difference between good and bad. As is often the case, people, including judges, don’t think ethically and analytically in deciding what is good or bad for all. Most look to the past and “black letter” law or religion for guidance.
Consider the following: Chen is a human being. His dog, a 5-month-old Doberman pinscher, was an animal, and most animals think — sometimes in very simplistic ways, driven by need, threat or love.
I will give all of them the character of sentience, but dogs in particular have shown they can be trained to save lives, be service dogs and, even without training, have done so.
Dogs, like other animals, are completely dependent on environment, and the love and care of their owners. They also exhibit an almost pristine innocence.
Chen, also a sentient being, demonstrated no ethical or rational response to his anger. He attempted to mortally hurt his girlfriend and he burned, broke limbs, cut off the penis and, ultimately was responsible for the death of his puppy.
Hill examined the case from a number of different perspectives. He looked at the law, Chen’s statements of remorse, Chen’s past and, amazingly, Chen’s cultural background. This is a background that considers eating dogs a delicacy. He also considered Chen’s college ambitions. There were other lesser considerations.
Now, let us suppose that dog was a two-legged human. There is a certainty that Chen would have been indicted, tried and convicted of homicide. The penalty would have been very lengthy incarceration and other economic consequences.
Accordingly, the obvious bifurcation is between human and animal. There is also a very powerful ethical consideration that raises the following question:
Is there a manifest morality that distinguishes the act and the act consequences? Had the victim been a human, would Chen have behaved differently? Apparently not, given the injury to his girlfriend.
In his culture, do they eat humans? If we give more serious thought to the cultural issue, can we universalize it? Would it be acceptable for us to accept sharia law in this society because it may be the cultural norm in certain other societies?
Should we accept this difference of the number of legs as a difference that gives rights to one class and not to another? Would this be ethical and would this create a “good” that could add a positive baseline to our society?
There is much more to this, and I am not allowed sufficient space to explore all the ethical issues. In closing, I ask that Judge Hill and his apologists more carefully consider ethics in making their decisions.
— Lee Rosenberg is a Santa Ynez resident, founder and president of the Vineyard Valley Theatre Company and a retired entertainment industry executive. The opinions expressed are his own.