Animal abuse and criminology: introduction to a special issue

I wish I had a penny or a cent or a peso for each of the many times in the past few years that I have listened in on a conversation or read something about human rights and animal rights and then been forced to think through to the variety of its possible conclusions what for three shipwrecked and hungry survivors in a lifeboat on the high seas is the proper thing to do about their thirst and imminent starvation. Suppose that the three survivors of this shipwreck are an adult human, the ship’s cabin boy and a dog. Suppose also that they are several days away from rescue and without hope of acquiring food or potable water from their salt-water environment. For purposes of survival in this dire situation, may one of the two humans kill and eat one of the other two survivors? If so, which one? To these two questions almost certainly the response by two of the shipwrecked survivors themselves, by would-be in-contact-radio-rescuers, by medical consultants, by theological experts and by the general public would be: “it’s alright to eat the dog”.