The abuse of animals cannot fall into the top left quadrant because 1; animals are not recognized as legal individuals and 2; animals themselves are not able to report abuse. Can animals be the victims of abuse in a moral sense? Yes. However, legally, animals are equivalent to mailboxes or mobile phones.Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:43 pm The Medium article rests on the dubious argument that meat would be a victimless crime in a legal sense. The section of the article, Animal slaughter is not legally the same as murder, is weak. Not the sub-title, but what follows below it. It’s clear to me that in fact meat eating falls in the top left quadrant of the article, with an external victim and aggression.
There are laws which criminalize behavior that targets no external victim, like drug-use, that paradoxically lead to more crime. This would likely be the case in the criminalization of animal consumption. Part of what makes it so much more difficult to enforce certain laws, like drug laws and perhaps animal welfare laws is that there is no individual who can report the crime.
On the other hand, crimes like rape, murder, or theft, there are indeed external victims who can report the crime and pursue justice. Criminalizing these behaviors do not lead to the general rise of more rape murder and theft.
Would making meat illegal end meat consumption? Nope. For similar reasons to other crimes with no external victims.