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?

Animals and Language

I know this is a little off topic from this weeks discussion of zoos, but I have been thinking a lot about language and animals lately. In Carol Adams' piece, "The Rape of Animals, The Butchering of Women", she says that phrases like "treating women like animals" or "pieces of meat" is damaging to the respectful treatment of animals. I am wondering if this is true. To compare a human to an animal is insulting. Animals are less intelligent than humans. We often say things like "you are acting like an infant" or "you're behavior is childlike" when we mean they are being immature. Is this insulting to children and infants? Is it offensive to compare humans to animals when we are insulting their intelligence?

Response to Skyla, "Animals as Clothing"

Skyla asked why our culture uses animals for clothing when there are so many other alternatives. I agree with Skyla that, in a society where there are plenty of alternatives, there is no moral justification to use animal skin for clothing. However, there are some explanations for this.

As Skyla stated, many people are not aware that they are wearing an animal product or byproduct. Most sneakers are made from leather unless otherwise stated. I know I did not know I was wearing sneakers made from cows until long after I became a vegetarian. So, a possible reason that people wear animal products is because they are not aware of what is in their shoes/clothing/etc.

As for more obvious uses of animals for clothing, such as fur, it is often a status symbol. This blog post really made me think about fur as a status symbol. The author argues that, for so long, White women wore fur because it was luxurious and fancy, and Black women were always denied this. Now that Black women may be able to afford the luxury of wearing fur, it can be symbolic for progress Black women have made. While I still do not think these explanations for the use of animals of clothing are morally sound, I think the contextual implications need to be considered.

Question: Is wearing fur morally justifiable?

Response to Todd's Argument For Hunting

Todd argued that subsistence hunting is the only morally defensible type of hunting. If people cannot get food from any other source, then we have no right to tell them they can't hunt. I agree with Todd that if hunting is necessary for some people to survive, then it is morally defensible for them to do so. However, I do not agree with how he got to that conclusion. Todd states that "An animal would kill to survive, so I justify it here on that basis" regarding hunting for food. In the beginning of the semester we discussed the fact that animals are moral patients and humans are moral agents. As moral agents, we can make "right" or "wrong" decisions. However, animals, being moral patients, cannot be held accountable for their actions. So, yes, an animal would kill to survive. And I happen to agree that humans can also kill to survive without being morally wrong. But you cannot make the jump from "animals do it" to "so we should do it too" without assuming that animals and humans both have the same capabilities of moral reasoning.

Question: Are there degrees of moral agency?

Response to Sarah, "Sliding Scale of Ethics"

Sarah argued that we should accept our family and friends for having different opinions than us. I think that there is a line where you shouldn't tolerate a family member or friend's views. As somebody else said in their blog, if the person is abusing an animal, you are obligated to speak up about that. I also believe that if somebody holds views that are ignorant and potentially dangerous, you should say something. You can challenge someone's beliefs politely without attacking them. In the case of hunting, it is most likely a hobby that people won't want to give up no matter what reasons you give. But I think you owe it to yourself to be honest about how you feel. It is hard to talk about touchy subjects, because people often get defensive and feel personally attacked. However, I think it's good to at least have conversations about these issues.

Question: Has anyone ever had a successful conversation with someone about animal rights?

Trophy Hunting: Harmful to Humans

Regardless of whether trophy hunting might be beneficial towards animals, the economy, or the population, trophy hunting is harmful to the hunter. Killing an animal and using it's body for food or clothing may be acceptable, but proudly displaying the dead body of an animal is not morally justifiable. Killing a human in self-defense is usually considered okay, but it would not be acceptable to hang up the head of someone you killed in self-defense on your mantle. There is no reason to use the body of an animal you killed as a "trophy". Trophy hunting places value on dominance, violence, and ownership of other bodies.

Kant argued that our duties towards animals are actually just duties towards humanity. Kicking a dog is not bad because it harms the dog, but because it harms the character of the human kicking it. While I don't agree with this line of thinking in every context, I think it can be applied to the issues of trophy hunting. Alastair Gunn gave good justifications for hunting in Zimbabwe, but I am still not convinced that the glorification of this violent act is justifiable. Using the dead body of an animal you killed as a trophy is harmful towards humanity.

Question: What is a good justification for the "trophy" aspect of trophy hunting?