**TL;DR: Hurting a defenceless human being is worse, however hurting a defenceless animal is wrong on many of the same levels...** Only hurting a defenceless, innocent human being could be considered worse, (another interesting debate topic for another time!), although hurting defenceless animals is immoral for many of the same reasons, as animals are sentient and violence without good reason is wrong. (Interestingly, there is evidence to suggest that [people who are cruel to animals are likely to go on to hurt humans](https://www.peta.org/issues/animal-companion-issues/animal-companion-factsheets/animal-abuse-human-abuse-partners-crime/) as well.) - Causing hurt (for no greater good), is part of what constitutes an immoral act across many of our belief systems. Causing pain without very good reason is simply cruel. - There are very few reasons for hurting a defenceless animal for the greater good. Animals can’t ‘wrong’ you, and defenceless animals are presumably not an immediate threat. Unlike with human beings, there are some instances when hurting a defenceless animal is morally justifiable. Namely, killing an animal for meat when it is necessary for survival. (Even if done painlessly, this still causes hurt as killing itself is a form of hurt.) However these instances are few and far between, and the meat industry as a whole can't be seen as morally justifiable.

**Viscerally, and in a way I can't quite explain, I do feel that hurting a defenseless animal is one of the most deeply troubling things a person can do.** - Just on a purely emotional level, I feel so intensely that hurting something that is so unable to defend itself, and so incredibly innocent, is profoundly sad and horrible. Of course hurting human beings is equally terrible and sad, but there's something of a gut reaction to the notion of innocent, defenseless animals being hurt. It's the same type of thing, maybe, as feeling that crimes against children are all that much more disturbing and sad. - Some might argue that hurting animals could be justified by the tendency for animals to be savage themselves. If a bear, for instance, would kill a person in a heartbeat, hurting the bear might not seem so bad. However, a defenseless animal wouldn't fall into that category of willing-to-hurt-people-in-a-heartbeat. And even in the case of the relatively savage bear, I don't think hurting an animal is anything less than a cruel thing to do, ever. (I don't mean to refer to any cases where an animal such as a bear were actually attacking someone. It's okay to fight back to the point of damage if need be in those cases, certainly, as Laura as already pointed out.) - Animals that can't defend themselves and that are so incredibly innocent should be protected at all costs, especially because they likely can't understand our human world. My heart absolutely breaks to think about animals being hurt in any way when they've nothing to do with anything at all, and can't even comprehend human affairs. There's something that just feels so deeply wrong about that to me, and probably to a great many others---hurting in any way something that doesn't even know what's happening and that is so, so innocent and sweet by default/pure nature.

I wonder how many who voted for are vegan? The 70 billion animals we needlessly kill each year for meat certainly don't have the means to defend themselves, so surely you are against that also?