> the kind of people who treat them as a human equal.
No, they treat them as better than people.
Because in their value system, animals are moral objects but not moral subjects. By that, I mean that actions done to animals can have moral weight. If you take a sick kitten and nurse it back to health, you are a good person. If you kick a puppy, you are a bad person.
But the animal itself (according to this culture) carries no moral responsibility. If a dog bites someone, it's not an evil dog. It's not the dog's fault. It was just raised poorly, or traumatized as a puppy, or the owner should have kept it leashed better, etc.
Thus animals are always morally pure, but people can be bad people. I kind of get where the value system is coming from: animals really are on the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to power and agency, so it does make sense to think of them as mostly receivers of moral actions. But some people take that really far.
Yes, it extends to the realm of absurdity. When people post videos of animals doing good things, invariably comments are posted affirming how much better animals are than humans and "we don't deserve #{animal}s". At the same turn completely forgetting that in the wild, animals eat other animals (and humans) alive, engage in tribal wars, play around and torture their prey before eating them, commit infanticide, rape, etc.
When they aren't abused, nearly all dogs are extremely loyal and affectionate. When they see you after even the shortest of absences, they act like a kid on Christmas morning just because you're there. They understand basic feelings and will try to comfort you when you're not feeling great. Most are patient to a fault with children. Many if not most will act as guardians, protecting you from threats without hesitation, even in cases where it is obvious it is likely to cost their lives.
We absolutely don't deserve them.
With no cognitive dissonance, I can also recognize that some dogs can be dangerous, and in extreme cases, need to be put down. However, I would point out that the vast majority of misbehaved dogs can and should be trained out of their bad behavior, so it's nearly always their owners' responsibilities.
No, they treat them as better than people.
Because in their value system, animals are moral objects but not moral subjects. By that, I mean that actions done to animals can have moral weight. If you take a sick kitten and nurse it back to health, you are a good person. If you kick a puppy, you are a bad person.
But the animal itself (according to this culture) carries no moral responsibility. If a dog bites someone, it's not an evil dog. It's not the dog's fault. It was just raised poorly, or traumatized as a puppy, or the owner should have kept it leashed better, etc.
Thus animals are always morally pure, but people can be bad people. I kind of get where the value system is coming from: animals really are on the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to power and agency, so it does make sense to think of them as mostly receivers of moral actions. But some people take that really far.