Jacks of Science Ethics: Pets = Animal Cruelty?
June 17th, 2008
Most people agree that owning a poofy kitty or a slobbery poochie can be extremely rewarding. Companionship, pre-warmed furniture, a lap-full of shedded fur...the list of pet benefits is both long and heart-warming.
However, it is really moral to keep animals locked in our houses, mostly for our own enjoyment? Furthermore, is it moral to genetically alter (i.e. breed) animals to look "cute" or "handsome", even if that means creating in serious health risks for the animals?
Based on the picture above, I'm inclined to say that the moral risks are well-worth the hilarious pet-wig payoffs. For the sake of argument, here's a run-though of the various moral justifications I've heard from pet-owners, along with my zoological retorts:
1. "Pets live much better/more comfortable/longer lives in human homes than they would in the wild."
This one is tough to defend. It rests upon the anthrocentric idea that humans, being all-mighty, must know what's best for animals and how to give them the most fulfilling lives possible. But how can you ever know whether or your dog is truly better off in your house versus the lush woods?
2. "Dogs and cats have been selectively bred to enjoy the company of humans. My dog loves it at home!"
The problem with this that is assumes that the behavior the animal has been selected to express (amicability to humans) is truly reflective of the animals thoughts/"feelings" (i.e. that they really do enjoy the company of humans, rather than simply behave that way).
3. "Working animals, such as seeing-eye dogs, increase the owner's quality of life dramatically."
This is probably true. However, it doesn't change the fact that the animal is born into a life of servitude.
4. "It has been suggested that dogs may have domesticated themselves. They've got themselves into this mess, they can get themselves out."
I haven't thought of a clever response to this yet. I was thinking about using "Its only a theory!", but we all know where that leads.
So, it seems that the keeping of animals as pets is, at least in some ways, difficult to defend from a moral standpoint. In spite of all my zoological musings, Chris sent me the following video that blew my arguments to smitherines:
June 19th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
I think this is a great question, that should gather a lot more consideration from the millions of pet owners in North America.
There is little doubt that the vast majority of pet owners do not engage in acts of intentional cruelty toward their pets as many people would define it, so the direct link that many of us would make with this question is out.
In exploring whether pet ownership is actually harmful to pets however, I think we need to first consider what science has discovered about each species needs, along with how important those needs are to the individual animal. It could then be evaluated how effectively those needs are being met by the average owner of these animals.
In doing this I think we would find that in fact a large portion of pets have a poor quality of life based on the criteria that their living environment does not allow for the expression of natural behaviors, social structures, communication, or personal interests.
I think the spontaneity and self interest that usually inspires many pets to be acquired in the first place provides ample ground for people uneducated on these animals to bring them into their home and shower them with sweet, but woefully inadequate "love".
Furthermore, we hold high expectations of what pets are supposed to bring to us in exchange for our care of them, an expectation which they themselves have no interest in meeting. This is a recipe for great frustration for both parties and results in millions of pets being surrendered, given away and ultimately euthanized.
When we look at even basic needs of pets it is easy to identify where cruelty might be lurking. The number of highly social animals who are kept in total isolation, the size of the cages we keep pets in, in contrast to their natural territorial requirements, the limitation cages impose on the ability of pets like birds to express even their most basic behaviours, could provide ample fuel on the question of whether pet ownership is cruel.
As with all things, there are exceptions. There are people who have the time, knowledge, money, space etc. to take great care of their animals. Fads aside, some species are likely better suited to captivity then others. Some species may be both solitary and roam very small territories, an example of how their needs could be far easier to meet.
Ultimately, I think this stems from the fact that we have an unfortunately limited respect for most animals. We tend to view them as beings who landed lower on the ladder rung than us, we often view them as brutish, dirty, devolved and in the very least less valuable than we are. In a society where we grow up learning that there are humans and then "animals," I suspect people run into a conflict when they bring animals into their homes and realize they were wrong in these assumptions. They reconcile it by "humanizing" their pets as children or family members, a belief which allows them to grant them the status of importance that animals should likely have in our society in the first place.
Perhaps if we could better recognize and accept ourselves as animals, we would come to view pets and pet care differently. We could respect dogs as dogs, not as furry humans, and thus could stop diminishing their needs for exercise, social time and pack structure like we currently do. Then maybe, we could move beyond the self interest we share with all species and better demonstrate our humanity by questioning, learning and committing ourselves to choices and actions that are not just in the interest of our needs, but the animals we care for as well.