Response to Shelby, "Animal Abuse, Domestic Abuse"

This is a response to Shelby's post "Animal Abuse, Domestic Abuse". Shelby linked to an article where the author notes that people tend to donate to animal shelters over battered women's shelters. I agree with some things the author said. I believe that it's easy to sympathize with animals because they are moral patients, so they can't do anything wrong, but when a human is in a bad state people ask "What did he/she do to deserve this?" or "Why did he/she let this happen?" People often think that a woman can leave her batterer at any time and it's her fault if she stays. However, an animal cannot choose to stay with an abusive owner. Even though battered women are autonomous beings, they are often so controlled and manipulated by their abuser that they lack any freedom to leave their situation. Because situations with humans are more complicated than situations with animals, the author thinks people will be more likely to sympathize with animals. However, I don't see why the author has to pit the two issues against each other. In fact, it is common for a batterer to also be abusive toward the family pet, so there is definitely some overlap between these two issues. Both animal shelters and women's shelters are important, and I don't think we need to talk about which one is more important, because they both are necessary. However, I think the ideal solution would be to rid the world of abuse so there wouldn't need to be shelters.

Question: How can we rid the world of abuse?

Response to Skyla, "Turkey Day"

My question to you is: What's so bad about tofurcky? What's it going to take for Americans to realize Thanksgiving is not about the 20 pound bird in the middle of the table but more about bringing family together? It's still Thanksgiving even if there isn't a turkey.

I agree with Skyla that the tradition of eating a turkey on Thanksgiving is problematic, but unfortunately that is just the beginning of the issues I have with Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving is a holiday that glorifies the genocide of Native Americans. We all celebrate, give thanks, get together with family and friends, and eat good food, when we don't deserve to celebrate. Americans sometimes like to pick and choose parts of history that are more desirable and paint a prettier picture. Children are taught that the relations between "Indians" and Pilgrims were peaceful. Additionally, I have problems with the Thanksgiving season because Black Friday promotes consumerism and often goes hand in hand with violence. Two years ago, a man was trampled and killed in my hometown at Walmart. Our desire to get what we think is rightfully ours (and this can also be applied to our attitudes about getting land from the Native Americans) can end in tragedy. So, it is interesting to me that Thanksgiving combines the unethical treatment of animals, erasure of genocide, and consumerism gone violent in its traditions.

Question: How can we reform the traditions of Thanksgiving?

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?