Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Full Version: Why keeping a pet is fundamentally unethical
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
https://aeon.co/essays/why-keeping-a-pet...-unethical

EXCERPTS: [...] We oppose domestication and pet ownership because these violate the fundamental rights of animals.

The term ‘animal rights’ has become largely meaningless. [...] The problem with this attribution of paternity is that Singer is a utilitarian who rejects moral rights altogether, and supports any measure that he thinks will reduce suffering. In other words, the ‘father of the animal rights movement’ rejects animal rights altogether and has given his blessing to cage-free eggs, crate-free pork, and just about every ‘happy exploitation’ measure promoted by almost every large animal welfare charity. Singer does not promote animal rights; he promotes animal welfare. He does not reject the use of animals by humans per se. He focuses only on their suffering. In an interview with The Vegan magazine in 2006, he said, for example, that he could ‘imagine a world in which people mostly eat plant foods, but occasionally treat themselves to the luxury of free-range eggs, or possibly even meat from animals who live good lives under conditions natural for their species, and are then humanely killed on the farm’.

We use the term ‘animal rights’ in a different way, similar to the way that ‘human rights’ is used when the fundamental interests of our own species are concerned. For example, if we say that a human has a right to her life, we mean that her fundamental interest in continuing to live will be protected even if using her as a non-consenting organ donor would result in saving the lives of 10 other humans. A right is a way of protecting an interest; it protects interests irrespective of consequences. The protection is not absolute; it may be forfeited under certain circumstances. But the protection cannot be abrogated for consequential reasons alone.

Non-human animals have a moral right not to be used exclusively as human resources, irrespective of whether the treatment is ‘humane’, and even if humans would enjoy desirable consequences if they treated non-humans exclusively as replaceable resources.

When we talk about animal rights, we are talking primarily about one right: the right not to be property. The reason for this is that if animals matter morally – if animals are not just things – they cannot be property. If they are property, they can only be things. Think about this matter in the human context. We are all generally agreed that all humans, irrespective of their particular characteristics, have the fundamental, pre-legal right not to be treated as chattel property. We all reject human chattel slavery. That is not to say that it doesn’t still exist. It does. But no one defends it.

[...] To say that an animal has a right not to be used as property is simply to say that we have a moral obligation to not use animals as things, even if it would benefit us to do so. With respect to domesticated animals, that means that we stop bringing them into existence altogether. We have a moral obligation to care for those right-holders we have here presently. But we have an obligation not to bring any more into existence.

[...] And it does not matter whether we characterise an owner as a ‘guardian’, as some advocates urge. Such a characterisation is meaningless. If you have the legal right to take your dog to a kill shelter, or to ‘humanely’ kill your dog yourself, it does not matter what you call yourself or your dog. Your dog is your property. [...] But, as you recoil in horror thinking of what life would be like without your beloved dog, cat or other non-human companion, whom you love and cherish as a member of your family, you are probably thinking: ‘But wait. What if we required everyone to treat their animals the way I treat mine?’

The problem with this reply is that, even if we could come up with a workable and enforceable scheme that required animal owners to provide a higher level of welfare to their animals, those animals would still be property. We would still be able to value their lives at zero and either kill them, or take them to a shelter where they would be killed if not adopted.

You might respond that you disagree with all that as well, and that we ought to prohibit people from killing animals except in situations in which we might be tempted to allow assisted suicide (terminal illness, unrelenting pain, etc) and that we should prohibit shelters from killing animals except when it is in the best interests of the animal.

What you’re suggesting starts coming close to abolishing the status of animals as chattel property and requiring that we treat them in a way that is similar to the way we treat human children. Would it be acceptable to continue to breed non-humans to be our companions then?

Our answer is still a firm ‘no’. [...] Domesticated animals are completely dependent on humans, who control every aspect of their lives. Unlike human children, who will one day become autonomous, non-humans never will. That is the entire point of domestication – we want domesticated animals to depend on us. They remain perpetually in a netherworld of vulnerability, dependent on us for everything that is of relevance to them....
Better for an animal to be vulnerable and dependent or a resource than to be a nuisance that must be killed to protect humans. Species in-group preference is not only natural throughout the animal kingdom but ethical. The alternative is to call allowing wild elephants to trample people and destroy villages ethical. We must admit a hierarchy of ethical priorities.
I was playing with that idea recently. That making an animal a pet seemed to me self-serving and disrespectful of the animal's freedom. But watching the numerous dog owners walk their dogs around my apt every day I have to appreciate the bond between human and pet. There is an ensoulment process for both the animal and the human that deepens them emotionally and ethically. And then when you check the stats of the millions of stray animals that get born every year and continue to breed and live lives of desperation and scavenging, you realize being a pet is about the best thing we can do for such animals short of putting them to sleep. We have brought this upon ourselves and cursed these dogs and cats to depend on us like children. Taking care of them is humane and beneficial for the animal. I'd take the life of being a pet over being a stray any day.
(Sep 17, 2016 06:51 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]I was playing with that idea recently. That making an animal a pet seemed to me self-serving and disrespectful of the animal's freedom. But watching the numerous dog owners walk their dogs around my apt every day I have to appreciate the bond between human and pet. There is an ensoulment process for both the animal and the human that deepens them emotionally and ethically. And then when you check the stats of the millions of stray animals that get born every year and continue to breed and live lives of desperation and scavenging, you realize being a pet is about the best thing we can do for such animals short of putting them to sleep. We have brought this upon ourselves and cursed these dogs and cats to depend on us like children. Taking care of them is humane and beneficial for the animal. I'd take the life of being a pet over being a stray any day.

We just put our dog down yesterday.  Rather than take him to the vet office, we had an in-home service come to our house.  It was very humane.  They gave him a sedative to help him relax before administering the lethal injection.  I can only hope my end is as peaceful as was his.

A pet becomes a part of your family, or so was our dog.  You really notice their absence when they are gone.  Dogs and cats were  bred to be part of the human experience.  It just seems natural, as if it were meant to be.
It’s a difficult experience.  Sorry, Bowser.
I'd think there are times in which humans should have pets. Those times are when humans need help and could use service animals around the house to assist them opening doors, picking up stuff and doing all sorts of helpful things like lead the blind. Otherwise I tend to agree that pets aren't really needed. Many humans do find their pets in a pet shelter which does help the shelters take care of unwanted pets.
In the same manner that the fox follows the grey jay and raven to scavenge after the wolf has made the kill, it has been speculated that we did not domesticate animals but that animals recognized value in getting to know and cohabit with humans. Certainly, even today, there are many species that have not become family pets but they have gotten quite habituated to living among us, including raccoons, foxes, coyotes, gulls, pigeons, ravens and many others.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/dogs-that...lves/1276/

With our propensity for taking over and often despoiling habitat, the animals that are best adapted to coexisting with us have gained significantly in longevity with us to provide for them. Whether they are working animals, companion animals or even species that we utilize as food, the concessions of the individual have led to benefit for the entire species.

Capitalism has taken full advantage of our relationship with animals that cater to our emotional senses and the pet industry market has expanded from $17 billion in 1991 to an estimated $62.5+ billion for this year in the US alone.

https://americanpetproducts.org/press_in...trends.asp

What might be construed as unethical is the amount of money we invest in our pets compared to solving the homeless and hunger fronts in our own nation. (I could likely fund a small village in Africa for what I spend on horses, though I count the cost to be my health and entertainment budget. Certainly healthier than drinking, smoking and some other habits.) Cats tend to adopt me whenever a vacancy occurs. I plan to be without an 'eater of vermin' and one will show up in the yard within a week. I swear they are like squirrels and maintain a territory hence any space devoid of a feline will have one migrate in to maintain the balance.
(Sep 22, 2016 07:58 PM)scheherazade Wrote: [ -> ]In the same manner that the fox follows the grey jay and raven to scavenge after the wolf has made the kill, it has been speculated that we did not domesticate animals but that animals recognized value in getting to know and cohabit with humans. Certainly, even today, there are many species that have not become family pets but they have gotten quite habituated to living among us, including raccoons, foxes, coyotes, gulls, pigeons, ravens and many others.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/dogs-that...lves/1276/

With our propensity for taking over and often despoiling habitat, the animals that are best adapted to coexisting with us have gained significantly in longevity with us to provide for them. Whether they are working animals, companion animals or even species that we utilize as food, the concessions of the individual have led to benefit for the entire species.

Capitalism has taken full advantage of our relationship with animals that cater to our emotional senses and the pet industry market has expanded from $17 billion in 1991 to an estimated $62.5+ billion for this year in the US alone.

https://americanpetproducts.org/press_in...trends.asp

What might be construed as unethical is the amount of money we invest in our pets compared to solving the homeless and hunger fronts in our own nation. (I could likely fund a small village in Africa for what I spend on horses, though I count the cost to be my health and entertainment budget. Certainly healthier than drinking, smoking and some other habits.) Cats tend to adopt me whenever a vacancy occurs. I plan to be without an 'eater of vermin' and one will show up in the yard within a week. I swear they are like squirrels and maintain a territory hence any space devoid of a feline will have one migrate in to maintain the balance.

I think the local raccoon thinks I am a raccoon even.