Should We Keep Pets?

Recommend (5) Comments (18)

HSUS misses the point.

The point is not whether we derive benefits from relating to nonhuman animals. Of course we do.

The point is not whether, if we take good care of nonhuman animals, they derive some benefit from that good care. Of course they do.

The question is not whether we should give loving homes to animals. As I stated explicitly in my opening comment, “Clarifying the Question,” we have a moral obligation to provide homes to the dogs, cats, and other “companion” animals who are currently in existence as a result of the institution of “pet” ownership. We live with five rescued nonhuman animals.

The point is whether we should continue to breed animals for use as “pets.”

I maintain that we ought not to do so. There are hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats right at this very moment seeking homes that many will not find. There are millions of unwanted animals killed every year. The abuse, neglect, and mistreatment of “companion” animals are the rule and not the exception. Although some people treat their animals well, many more do not.

Moreover, the institution of “pet” ownership, however well we treat our animals, raises a fundamental moral problem: companion animals are our property. They are things that we own. We control every aspect of the lives of nonhumans—from the moment that they are born until the moment that they die. I maintain that we cannot justify the property status of any sentient nonhuman animals, including those we use as “pets.”

HSUS maintains that we ought to continue to breed animals for use as pets but does not address these practical and moral problems.

Rather, HSUS maintains that we have had relationships with nonhumans for a long time and we get many benefits from that relationship and that some animals receive some benefit from the relationship. That is neither controversial nor responsive.

HSUS claims that this is not a “fruitful argument.”   Putting aside that it is the editors of Opposing Views that determine what the issues for debate, I reiterate that I fully understand that many people may not understand this debate. After all, we live in a world where we think it’s acceptable to kill billions of animals every year simply because we like the taste. If you eat animal products, then I can understand why you might the “pet” question to be tangential. You should consider these issues in that context.

It is important to understand that HSUS approaches this issue and others an animal welfare organization; it maintains that the human exploitation of nonhumans is morally justified as long as we treat animals “humanely. I come at these issues as an advocate for animal rights who argues that we cannot justify our exploitation of nonhuman animals however “humanely” we treat them. I also argue that because animals are property, the standards of “humane” treatment will not provide significant protection for animal interests.

Let us be clear: The issue is not whether we enjoy living with animals or whether, if we treat animals well, they derive benefits too. The issue is whether we should continue to breed animals and perpetuate into the future the institution of “pet” ownership. HSUS apparently maintains that we should continue to breed animals for this purpose. In my view, that is a troubling and indefensible notion and, in any event, HSUS has not yet addressed it or provided any sort of justification for the continued breeding of animals and the perpetuation of the institution of "pet" ownership.