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,
Share with your friends: