Response to Hallie

"This leads me to ask, if petkeeping does need to be eradicated, what is the best way to begin that process? Should we do it all at once, or take steps toward the goal?"

I definitely agree with Tom Regan that "incremental abolitionist change" is the best method for effecting change. This would mean that we would have to work nonviolently within the system to take steps towards abolishing the practice of pet-keeping. As we have discussed in class, while the nature of pet-keeping may be unethical, it would also be unethical to just let domesticated animals be free when they no longer know how to. The responsible thing to do would be to give animals the things they need to be free. However, we would have to be careful to make sure the ultimate goal is always to completely get rid of the practice of pet-keeping. Making conditions better for domesticated animals is not helpful; it is actually supporting the enslavement of animals. My question is, what, if anything, can humans do to "undomesticate" animals?

Response to "Understanding Animal Rights Activism As Functional Religion"

Wesley V. Jamison, Caspar Wenk, and James V. Parker compare animal rights activism to a cult-like religion in their essay "Every Sparrow That Falls: Understanding Animal Rights Activism As Functional Religion". I found their assessment of the animal rights community ridiculous and insulting. They point out that animal activism often requires "extraordinary levels of personal commitment and conviction", alienates people from their families and friends, encourages people to drastically change their lifestyles, and places more importance on animals than humans. The authors' critique of animal activism reminds me of the arguments I am often met with for being a feminist. For me, feminism is a huge commitment, a lifestyle, and something that does sometimes alienate me from other people. People often accuse me of caring more about women than men. These arguments clearly come from the same place that Jamison and his coauthors are coming from. The authors of this essay seem afraid of confronting the actual issue of animal ethics. If they paint animal rights activists as these crazy cult followers, we will just laugh them off and not take their view into consideration. Most of what the authors point out about animal activists is true: they do commit a big portion of their life to what they are passionate in, it does sometimes alienate them from their communities, and it often does lead to a lifestyle change. But what is so bad about all of this? Being deeply committed to a cause is admirable. As long as you aren't using violence or fear to spread your message, being passionate is a good thing. It seems to me like the authors feel threatened by the animal rights movement, so they are dismissing animal activists as silly and pointless so they don't have to listen. It is similar to when people say feminists are all "angry man-haters"; they are quickly dismissing a group of people so they don't have to hear their arguments.

Question: Did anybody agree with this essay? Why?

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?

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?