Response to Skyla, "People Who Look Like Their Dogs"

Is there a line being crossed when pet owners dress up their dogs to look like miniature humans? Is it wrong and unnatural to do this or is it just an innocent act, in your opinion? Why or why not?

There is usually no practical reason to dress up a pet in clothing, unless it is to keep the animal warm. It seems that this is usually done purely for entertainment purposes. It is possible that people do this to their pets because they see their pet as more of a person than an animal (which is funny to me, because some animal activists consider animals "persons", but probably would not approve of treating animals like persons in this instance). It is also possible that people dress up their pets because it is "cute" and "funny" to see an animal dressed like a human. I am inclined to think that dressing up animals is wrong because it is not necessary for an animal to be wearing a cute outfit. Then again, is it ever necessary for a human to wear a bikini, or a bow, or a Halloween costume? No, but for most people, it is a natural inclination to want to decorate oneself in some way from time to time. For humans, there are statements made by clothing. Clothing can be an expression of one's values, or it can just be something fun to do to one's body. But clothing rarely just serves a practical purpose for us. Perhaps people are upset by the idea of an animal wearing clothing because animals cannot consent to what is being put on their bodies. However, babies cannot consent to what is put on their bodies, and yet babies are often dressed up in silly outfits and costumes. What is the difference between dressing up a baby and dressing up an animal?

Lisences for Pet Owners?

In Bernard and Michael Rollin's article, "Ethics and Companion Animals", they propose that, in order to keep a pet, one should have to aquire a liscense that ensures he or she is knowledgable about how to care for the animal they wish to keep. This sounds like a practical idea, but what if we said that people had to aquire a license to have a child? On one hand, people who want to become parents probably should be knowledgable about how to raise childen. On the other hand, it might not be ethic to tell people how to raise their children. Everyone has a different idea about how to be a good parent. Similarly, pet owners probably wouldn't all agree to one way in which an animal should be cared for. Some pet owners might see their animal as a member of the family, while others might see it as a security system for their home. Some may see their animal as nothing more than an aid for blindness, and still other may want to dress up their pet in little costumes. Still, it is undeniable that basic knowledge about a dog breed would be helpful if one wishes to own a dog. But where do we draw the line? There is a lot of variety in the way pet owners treat their animals. Can we say that there is one "right" way?

Petkeeping vs. Zoos

What is the distinction between petkeeping and zoos? Zoos are morally questionable because they keep animals in a confined space for the purpose of entertaining humans. Petkeeping, like zoos, takes animals out of their natural habitat and keeps them in a confined space for human use. In both zoos and households with pets, the animals are usually cared for, and sometimes cared for well and loved. Other times, animal are abused. In both cases, the animal's welfare is in the hands of humans. Sometimes this is a good thing; sometimes it isn't. Many people argue that petkeeping is morally acceptable because they have given their pet a loving home, and without them, their pet would have no place to go. Similarly, some zoo animals may have been saved from dangerous situations and given a better life in a zoo. However, this doesn't address the issue of petkeeping or zoos as an institution. There are good and bad cases that come out of these institutions, but it doesn't mean that we can decide whether or not they are problematic based on these cases. Some marriages are loving, happy unions, and some are abusive and traumatic. We cannot critique the institution of marriage based on these cases, because there is so much variety in peoples' experiences. To evaluate the moral implications of petkeeping (and zoos), we must not focus on specific cases (both good and bad), but the suggestions zoos and petkeeping as institutions make about our relationships with animals. Perhaps petkeeping is seen as morally acceptable more often than zoos are because people have bonds with their pets that they are too scared too question. Since I am a person who has never had a pet or had an attachment to an animal, it is possible that I and people like me can look at the issue of petkeeping more objectively. It is also arguable that since I have never had a pet, I don't know what I'm talking about. Still, I can't help but see a similarity between the practice of keeping domesticated pets in your home and keeping pets at a zoo. What, if any, are the moral distinctions between these two practices?