Is Having Pets Morally Permissible?
The Restriction of Freedom Objection
Download 484.97 Kb. View original pdf
|
英国宠物兔福利状况——我们能做些什么, 宠物动物-住房，繁殖和福利, 宠物保障计划可以增加福利, 笔记
| The Restriction of Freedom Objection In Why Tamagatchis Are Not Pets,’ 5 Deborah Barnbaum argues that there are four conditions that are individually necessary, and jointly sufficient, for something to count as one’s pet. 6 One of these conditions is that the relevant creature must be kept near to or around one’s home.This seems to be exactly right. If a creature continues to live freely in its natural habitat, assuming that it has one, it cannot plausibly bethought to be a pet. With this in mind, consider that most animals, including most of the animals that tend nowadays to be kept as pets, move around and do a variety of things. This is no mere accident of nature. Indeed, as David DeGrazia notes, 7 animals that are unable to move around and do various things are considerably less likely to survive and reproduce than animals that are able to do these things are. But, while most animals might have an interest in moving around and doing things, as well as the capacity to do so, only some animals — namely those that are sentient — can accurately be described as having a (rudimentary) desire to be active in this way. 8,9 This is relevant to the issue of the permissibility of having pets because in addition to our knowing that sentient animals can accurately be described in this way, we also know that they typically experience pleasure or satisfaction when they are able to act in accordance with their desires, and distress or frustration when they are prevented from doing so. This implies that sentient creatures can reasonably be expected to experience pleasure or satisfaction when they are able to move around and do what they want, and distress or frustration when they are prevented from doing so. And this, taken together with the fact that being able to move around and do things enhances fitness, implies that, all things being equal, sentient creatures are benefited by having the freedom to move around and do whatever it is that they might desire to do. 10 Given, then, that (at least) the vast majority of pets are sentient creatures, it is reasonable to expect that they would benefit from having the relevant sort of freedom. However, since part of what it means fora creature to be a pet is that it is kept in or around one’s home, part of what it means fora creature to be a pet is that it does not have this freedom, or, more specifically, that its freedom to go wherever it might desire to go and to do whatever it might desire to do is restricted. Thus, the vast majority of pets, by virtue of their being pets, are unable to access the benefit associated with having unrestricted freedom. In light of this, some might claim that the practice of having pets is in fact impermissible. Those who do are proponents of the restriction of freedom objection Society for Applied Philosophy, 2015 Jessica du Toit There can be no doubt that the vast majority of pets have their freedom restricted. However, contrary to the restriction of freedom objection, it does not necessarily follow from this that the practice of having pets is impermissible. Indeed, the practice of having pets would be rendered impermissible only if, all things considered, pets are harmed as a result of their not having the relevant sort of freedom. Thus, in order to determine whether the practice is rendered impermissible, let us take a closer look at some of the ways in which pet custodians tend to restrict their pets’ freedom to move around and do things.While most pets tend to have ample opportunity to explore certain parts of their respective pet custodians homes, many pets are not allowed the run of their respective pet custodians homes. Many pets are not allowed the run of the neighbourhoods surrounding their respective pet-custodians’ homes either. Moreover, while most pets tend to have some say in the matter of what and when they eat, very few pets are granted the freedom to eat whatever and whenever they might desire to eat. This is certainly not an exhaustive list of the ways in which pet custodians tend to restrict their pets freedom. In addition to the restrictions that I have already mentioned, there tend to be restrictions on pets freedom to socialise with other pets in the neighbourhood, and to sleep wherever they might desire to sleep, for example. But, these, and many of the other additional restrictions on pets freedom, are merely consequences of the restrictions that I have already mentioned. That is to say, there tend to be restrictions on pets freedom to socialise with other pets in the neighbourhood, Download 484.97 Kb. Share with your friends:
|