Michael Vick

 The Atlanta Falcons star quarterback Michael Vick recently pleaded guilty to dogfighting charges. Alongside three other co-defendents, Vick admitted to financing and running Bad Newz Kennels, an organization stationed on Vick’s home property which trains dogs specifically for fighting. The co-defendents also conceded to putting several dogs to death by hanging and drowning because of underperformance. All of these men face federal charges, especially Vick himself, who has also put his professional football career in jeopardy.

The focus of the Vick case is often put on both the cruelty of Vick’s actions towards the animals and the innocence of the animal’s themselves. We see this focus especially when the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) show up to demonstrate against Michael Vick during his case. What groups like PETA want to do is assert the rights of the animals over the abuse Vick and his co-defendents displayed against them. PETA is right in denouncing the behaviors of Vick and the Bad Newz Kennels. Clearly, what they have done is wrong.

However, the question we must ask is why are they wrong? We could say Vick and his men were wrong because abuse is wrong in and of itself regardless who or what it is against. Or, we could say Vick and his men were wrong because of who they abused–i.e. innocent and defenseless dogs. Either way, to state that Michael Vick and his co-defendents were wrong in the way they treated their dogs reveals something very critical about how we view ourselves and the world around us.

First, the Vick case shows us there is a distinct difference between Michael Vick and his dogs. Humans have a different accountability to right and wrong than animals do. This difference is hard to explain from an evolutionary point of view. If humans are unique and distinct from animals, then we can exercise meaningful justice. However, if Vick is nothing more than the advanced product of evolution, then it is difficult to explain why his actions were wrong while what the dogs did to each other were not.

Second, the Vick case reminds us that justice requires an objective, external standard of right and wrong. Attempts have been made to justify Vick’s actions by pointing to the cruelty of game hunting, slaughterhouses, and medical experimentation on animals. However, whether Vick is wrong or game hunting is wrong, it is impossible to be a consistent relativist when demanding justice.

The Vick case highlights the inherent dignity of Michael Vick as a human being. Vick was not simply wrong because of the way he treated his dogs. He was wrong because he defaced the goodness of God by abusing his responsibility over his dogs as a divine image-bearer. (Gen 1:26-30) As a result, Michael Vick’s actions dehumanized him because he was acting in direct contradiction to how he was created. Ironically, Michael Vick’s cruelty towards his dogs turned him into nothing more than an animal.