In the modern age many people, especially animal rights activists have begun to question the ethics behind owning pets. Many people maintain that it is simply unethical to keep an animal in your home when it's entirely entitled to experience its life by its own means. But still others say that pets are dependent on humans for survival and therefore we have an inherent responsibility to care for them.
I think that in the case of pets it is important to contextualize the situation and consider the animal's ability to survive without us, and the possible benefits of living with us. In the case of most dogs, it would be crazy to believe that they could survive without human assistance, many dogs wouldn't know the first thing about how to catch prey; but on the other hand, how can we justify keeping a bird that was meant to fly across the sky, locked up in a cage? Or keeping a fish in a barren glass bowl, that if we were subjected to life inside, would surely cause us to lose our minds. In these cases owning a pet could be likened to keeping a prisoner, because it's less like a pet and more like a living decoration that was deprived of any right or ability to lead its own life. This is why I think it's important to consider the animal itself when thinking about the ethics of pet ownership.
In conclusion, it is ethical to own most domesticated animals in modern times because they have been brought up to live along side humans, and many would be incapable of being independent. But in the case of wild animals like birds, fish, and reptiles this change to living along side humans in cages or water tanks would be catastrophic to their livelihoods, as they aren't adapted to those living conditions and many of these pets die because of it, which to me makes it quite unethical to own any undomesticated animals.
While I think that I mostly agree here, I think that it is important to recognize that the only reason that domesticate dogs cannot properly survive in the wilderness, is because we have domesticated them for so long. If they were back in nature for a significant length of time, the dogs best at adapting would learn survive.
ReplyDeleteYou argue here that bird's were not meant to be in cages; what do you mean by meant? Bodily functions and features do not indicate that a dog should be inside a house most of the day.
Also, I think what you are trying to say is that it is unethical to domesticate animals and that in the event that you have domesticated an animal, it would be unethical to not own domesticated animals.
Well the cool thing about dogs, cats, and other long domesticated animals in regards to this argument, is that if given the chance to escape, run away, and never come back, they typically wouldn't. To some degree on could assertain that the animal has chosen to remain in it's current state of semiprisonhood. These animals have adapted to stick with us, so by keeping them as pets, we are only fufilling their instinctual desires. And to keep the ball rolling, what about zoos?(the ones where the animals recieve proper care and at least a moderate amount of space, etc. etc.)
ReplyDeleteThere are a few arguments in favor of zoos. Given that they provide a space for exotic animals to be rehabilitated and taken care of, while giving people a chance to see such animals without having to travel halfway around the world. In general I think that zoos are bad though, because for the most part imprisoning the animals as exhibits is pretty inhumane when compared to the minimal benefits that the captive animals will receive.
ReplyDeleteI posted this on my blog:
ReplyDeleteFrom the title I thought the issue of 'owning' was what was going to be discussed. I think it is possible that the mode of 'being owned' is certainly immoral in humans. We will likely all agree that slavery is immoral.
So the question is then, is it moral to own animals? In our last class we discussed that just about every animal likely has the capacity for pleasure and pain, but if these can be provided for in the situation of ownership then there may be no immoral grounds for owning. But what about animals that exhibit signs of consciousnesses?
Ownership implys that the subject of ownership is an object, and that it can be disposed of in whatever way the owner thinks fit. If we do think that animals are in a separate moral category from objects, we might want to look forward to a different mode of relationship that is more moral than owner and owned. For example, the treatment of pets in certain social contexts as a sort of part of the family, should be extended into the legal sphere, replacing ownership.
While many clear-cut cases of pet mistreatment exist, I do not think there is a problem with the concept of merely owning a pet, so long as one treats the pet well. It may seem wrong to remove an animal from its natural environment, but consider: is the animal actually missing out on anything by becoming a pet? In many cases, no. There are some theories that the first domestic dogs were wild dogs which actually chose to spend time with and work alongside humans, because of the many benefits that this offered. In the wild, most animals have short, difficult lives, and in many cases domesticating them does not appear to deprive them of many enjoyable activities.
ReplyDeleteThe point about birds and fish being able to survive in the wild is quite valid, and I think that many birds do indeed miss out on a great deal by being domesticated. However, I don't think that the problem is that they could survive in the wild and pet owners deprive them of that life; instead, I think the problem is that the pet owners do not provide substitutes for the activities they could engage in if they lived in wild environments. Fish have very limited cognitive abilities - while it is true that many humans would go mad if confined to a small glass bowl, that is because humans require a great deal of stimulation. Fish typically do not. The average fish requires no more stimulation than a sparsely decorated bowl can provide. Birds are much more intelligent, and those birds which have their wings clipped, are ignored and neglected, or are confined to small cages at all times are, I think, being mistreated; however, birds which can fly around their owners' houses, get frequent attention, and only live in a cage at night (when they would sleep in the wild anyway) are living lives which are at least as nice as most of them would have in the wild. Basically, deciding to own a pet means assuming a responsibility to that animal to give it a life at least as nice as what it would live if it were undomesticated.
P.S. I also posted this on my blog if you'd rather read it there.