A professor at London School Economics (LSE) has recently written an article about the ethical implications of people having pets. Richard Healey is a moral, political, and legal philosopher, and his latest article argues that we have a strong moral reason to abolish the institution of pet keeping. His article is interesting, as it approaches things from quite a radical liberal perspective, essentially stating that humans keeping pets is nothing more than another way we exercise our power over animals. Whilst this may seem like quite the hot take, I don’t think his article is necessarily wrong in this thought process.
I have spoken before about whether or not I actually like the word ‘pet’, and this is another aspect of the animal protection movement that has opened up some very interesting discourse. As I mention in my own little post, the word ‘pet’ does carry a connotation of ‘ownership’, and it is largely seen as a quite a negative implication. I personally tend to refer to my animals as companion animals, but I do also appreciate that the word ‘pet’ is itself a very common word that is used by most in society without having any real underlying connotation. It is just one of the joys of language and linguistics. It could even be argued that the whole idea of ‘keeping’ an animal is also a negative connotation, as it almost suggests that the animal is prevented from leaving. Our intentions may be completely pure, and we are all wanting to care for our animals as well as we can, but does the language we use really reflect this?
Healey’s article essentially tries to raise awareness about the negative side of the pet trade. Yes, many of us do care of our animals with love, care, and a deep commitment to their wellbeing. But there are also a number of people in society still who do view animals as just a commodity, or an accessory, or that their animal is someone that the person can just throw away if they get bored of them. It’s why the period after Easter is a very hard time for rescue centres because people give up their rabbits once the novelty has worn off. It is also why May/June time is known as ‘kitten season’ because people do not properly care for their animals and get rid of their cats and their kittens once they realise how much work kittens can truly be. Healey’s article calls for a phasing out of the pet industry, with the hopes of one day completely abolishing the pet industry as a whole, which I think in theory I don’t have an issue with. His article approaches the issue from a power perspective, highlighting a discussion as to whether we can ever ethically care of animals as our pets when there will always be a power imbalance: We accept that animals are sentient beings with welfare needs, yet as pet owners we make all of their decisions for them – what they eat, where they can do, even whether or not they can reproduce at will. I believe there is a lot of nuance to this situation, and I don’t believe that there will be any clear-cut answer to this question, but it is a very interesting article to get those topics discussed and to make people think about how we all interact with animals in our day to day life.
His article also accepts that this is a huge topic of conversation and far more research needs to be done, and far more conversations need to take place, which I fully agree with it. The power balance is something that has been discussed previously in other areas of the movement, and I do believe it is a very interesting topic to discuss. Where can we ethically draw the line? Is it even possible to draw a line? It is something we could discuss at length and still never come to a clear consensus, but it is articles like Healey’s which help to push that discourse even further.
Taylor Talks Vegan 