in this section. Thus, I shall say no more about them than that I think that it is preferable that sterilization not remove the sex drive of pets (if this is possible, and that responsible pet custodians should perhaps provide sex partners for their sterilized pets The non-identity problem is relevant here too. But, as
I mentioned in an earlier note, since a discussion of this problem would take me well beyond the scope of this article, I shall not discuss it here either Thus, Alasdair Cochrane’s argument in Born in chains The ethics of animal domestication, in L. Gruen
(ed.)
The Ethics of Captivity, (New
York Oxford University Press, 2014), is not relevant to the version of the dependency objection that I am considering here. This is because, according to Cochrane, the dependency objection should be rejected because while the domestication of domesticated animals does lead those animals to being dependent on humans, their dependence does not necessarily lead to their being harmed In
Animal Ethics in Context (New York Columbia University Press, 2010, p. 126), Clare Palmer recognises that there
might be something wrong with creating animals to have particular relations of vulnerability to and dependence on humans, and that this might be the case
even if such relations did not negatively affect animals experiential wellbeing.
45 Both of the following consider the argument
from dignity Alasdair Cochrane, Animal entertainment in his
Share with your friends: