As a practical matter, there is simply no way to have an
institution of “pet” ownership that does not involve the problems of treatment
that I discussed in the previous entry.
But you might ask: “What if it were possible? If, as a
hypothetical matter, we changed the legal status of dogs and cats so that they
were no longer property and they had a legal status closer to that of human
children, would our continued production of dogs and cats (or other nonhumans)
and our keeping of ‘pets’ be morally justified?”
My answer to this purely hypothetical question is that we cannot
justify the perpetuation of domestication for the purpose of keeping “pets.”
Domesticated animals are dependent on us for everything that is important in
their lives: when and whether they eat or drink, when and where they sleep or
relieve themselves, whether they get any affection or exercise, etc. Although
one could say the same thing about human children, the overwhelming number of
human children mature to become autonomous, independent beings. Domestic
animals are neither a real or full part of our world or of the nonhuman world. They
exist forever in a netherworld of vulnerability, dependent on us for everything
and at risk of harm from an environment that they do not really understand. We
have bred them to be compliant and servile, or to have characteristics that are
actually harmful to them but are pleasing to us. We may make them happy in one
sense, but the relationship can never be “natural” or “normal.” They do not
belong stuck in our world irrespective of how well we treat them.
We cannot justify such an institution, even if it looked very different from
the situation that now exists. My partner and I live with five rescued dogs,
including dogs who had health problems when we adopted them. We love them very
much and try very hard to provide them the best of care and treatment. (And
before anyone asks, all seven of us are vegans!) You would probably not find
two people on the planet who enjoy living with dogs more than we do.
But if there were two dogs left in the universe and it were up to us as to
whether they were allowed to breed so that we could continue to live with dogs,
and even if we could guarantee that all dogs would have homes as loving as the
one that we provide, we would not hesitate for a second to bring the whole
institution of “pet” ownership to an end. We regard the dogs who live with us
as refugees of sorts, and although we enjoy caring for them, it is clear that
humans have no business continuing to bring these creatures into a world in
which they simply do not fit.
I understand that many people will be bewildered by my argument about the
inherent problems with domestication. But that is because we live in a world in
which we kill and eat 53 billion animals a year (not counting fish) and where
our best justification for that practice is that we enjoy the taste of animal
flesh and animal products. Most of you who are reading this right now are
probably not vegans. As long as you think it is acceptable to kill and eat
animals, the more abstract argument about domesticating animals to use as
“pets” is not likely to resonate. I understand that.
So go over to the Opposing Views debate, “Should We Eat
Meat?” and read my entries there. Think about the issue of veganism and then
consider the matter of “pets” !