human support to survive and live well has, at least to a very large extent, been brought about by deliberate human activities. Thus, humans are largely responsible for many of domesticated animals vulnerabilities.
For this reason, as Clare Palmer argues in
Animal Ethics in Context (New York Columbia University Press) and The moral relevance of the distinction between domesticated and wild animals in T.L.
Beauchamp & R.G. Frey (eds)
The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics (New York Oxford University Press, pp. 701–725, humans have special obligations to assist or care for these animals. She goes onto argue that since humans play no role in the bringing into existence of fully wild animals, and are not responsible for the various vulnerabilities of these animals, we do not have special obligations to assist or care for wild animals. Secondly, because wild
animals are not domesticated, it is harmful to them to be in captivity. They may live longer in captivity, but there is much more to a good life than a longer) life Bok op. cit, p. 777.
24 Humans might, for example, have a legitimate interest in not having their pets eat from their plates or void their bladders or bowels in the house See, for example, South Africa’s
Animals Protection Act, 1963 (Act No. 71 of 1962), online at http://
www.aacl.co.za/index.php?option
=com_content&view=article&id=6&Itemid=9 (accessed 7 October and the United Kingdom’s
Animal Welfare Act, 2006, online at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/
45/pdfs/ukpga_20060045_en.pdf (accessed 31 May 2014).
26 See, for example, Gary Francione,
Animals, Property and the Law (Philadelphia, PA Temple University Press Animal rights Your child or your dog in his
Introduction to Animal Rights:Your Child or Your Dog?(Philadelphia,
PA Temple University Press, 2007), pp. 151–166; and
Animals as Persons Essays on theShare with your friends: