Is Having Pets Morally Permissible?



Download 484.97 Kb.
View original pdf
Page1/9
Date06.07.2022
Size484.97 Kb.
#59141
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9
在道德上允许养宠物吗
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


Is Having Pets Morally Permissible?
JESSICA DU TOIT
ABSTRACT
In this article, I consider the question of whether having pets is morally permissible.
However, I do so indirectly by considering three objections to the practice of having pets — what
I shall call the restriction of freedom objection, the property objection, and the ‘dependency
objection’.The restriction of freedom objection is dismissed relatively easily.The property objection
also fails to show that having pets is morally impermissible. However, my consideration of this
second objection does lead to the conclusion that we ought to aim at changing existing legal
systems and the majority of people’s attitudes towards pets such that they (pets) are no longer
considered to be the personal property of the humans in whose homes they are kept. But, while
it is clear that we ought to aim at ending the practice of owning pets, it is not clear whether we
ought to aim at ending the practice of keeping pets. Indeed, I do not to reach a definitive
conclusion about the cogency of the dependency objection. However, I argue that this lack of
clarity is of little concern at this time as our present moral obligations to pets are quite clear.
Many of us live our lives in the company of animals.
1
That is to say, many of us share our homes with dogs, cats, birds and fish, among other species of animal. Traditionally, these kinds of animals have been referred to as ‘pets’.
2
Given the sheer number of humans who do share their homes with pets, it is unsurprising that the relationships between humans and pets are, and have been, a subject of discussion in various disciplines. In moral philosophy, there has been a growing literature over the last few decades. What is surprising, however, is that the overwhelming majority of philosophical discussions about these relationships concern the question of how humans ought to treat their pets. By contrast, the prior question of whether it is permissible for humans to have pets has received very little philosophical attention.
3
It is with this latter question that I shall engage in this article.
Considering the love and affection that many humans heap upon their pets, it is not unreasonable to think that being party to a human-pet relationship (typically) confers some benefit on a pet. Contrary to what one might think, however, this is not sufficient to show that it is morally permissible for humans to have pets. Before we can establish the conclusion that it is permissible to have pets, we need to consider whether a) pets are
harmed as a result of their being pets and, if so, whether these harms outweigh the benefits;
and b) pets are wronged as a result of their being pets.Thus, in what follows, I shall consider these questions. However, I shall do so indirectly.That is to say, I shall do so by considering three objections to the practice of having pets — what I shall call the restriction of freedom objection, the property objection, and the dependency objection’.
But, before I move onto consider these objections, two clarifications ought to be made. The first is that my discussion will be about the permissibility of having, as pets Society for Applied Philosophy, 2015, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX 2DQ, UK and 350 Main
Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 33, No. 3, August 2016
doi: 10.1111/japp.12106

those animals that tend nowadays to be kept as pets.These are animals such as dogs, cats and certain birds and fish. My discussion is not about the permissibility of having, as pets, animals such as chimpanzees and tigers, for example. The second clarification is that I shall not spend anytime discussing issues of obvious cruelty to, or neglect of, pets.
Rather, I shall discuss the permissibility of having pets assuming that those who do have pets are kind and caring towards them.
4
However, in restricting my focus to kind and caring humans, I certainly do not mean to imply that cruelty to, or neglect of, pets is not an important issue. It is a very important issue, but not amorally complicated one. But,
when asking about the moral permissibility of having pets, the more complex and interesting moral issues arise when those who door would, keep pets are assumed to be kind and caring.

Download 484.97 Kb.

Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2022
send message

    Main page