It’s Cute but is it Moral?
Written by Supratik Mitra ( Masters Student at Azim Premji University)
If you are a pet owner, this might be a tad bit uncomfortable, however, I request you to bear with me.
India’s pet population is estimated to be around 32 Million, and growing at 12% per annum. Reports also suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic had pushed for more pet ownership, as people became bound to their houses. Pets often seem to be loved and cared for, quite often treated as additional family members, and this hunky-dorey perception is only challenged when pets are treated poorly and cruelly, however, a strand of philosophy within animal rights advocacy problematises pet ownership itself. To say it simply, it is not about how one might let ‘Tuffy’ sleep on their own bed, or how he is allowed to roam in the house freely, it is a view which criticises how the law, society and maybe even you treat ‘Tuffy’ as your property.
Romanticising of the pet and human relationship is prevalent across popular media and culture and is often assumed to be ingrained with love, passion and care towards one’s pet. However, it’s not quite true, post the second wave of the pandemic pets were abandoned or donated, since families which initially adopted them, were unable to take care of their pets anymore as the world opened up again. In a report titled the ‘State of Pet Homelessness Index’ by Mars Petcare India, which was released in November 2021, it was revealed that nearly half of both current and former pet owners in India acknowledged that they had abandoned a pet at some point in the past. Furthermore, beyond abandonment, the animal rights conversation has also cited problems of inadequate and cruel living conditions of pets and the obsession with “pure breeding” pets, as immoral and unethical. However, the fact that some people don’t love their pets enough is not what problematises the ethics and moralities of keeping pets. While strengthening policies and regulations towards stopping animal cruelty can help solve some of these issues of abandonment, cruelty, living standards and even breeding, the question of whether it is at all morally permissible to keep pets doesn’t go away.
The relationship between humans and their pets is inherently characterized by an imbalance in power, dependency, and vulnerability. Pets are consistently susceptible to the actions and behaviour of their human caretakers, while the humans themselves do not share this vulnerability to the same degree. This vulnerability is further accentuated by the fact that pets lack the ability to leave, seek assistance, or hold negligent or abusive owners accountable for their actions. Pets are always reliant on their human caretakers to meet their basic needs, whereas humans while benefiting from emotional support and companionship from their pets, do not depend on them to the same extent. Furthermore, humans always have ultimate authority over their pets’ actions, treatment, social interactions, and access to essential resources, resulting in limited opportunities for pets to make choices about their own lives and a lack of control over most aspects of their daily existence throughout their lifespan. This asymmetry in who holds authority in the relationship is further problematised when one realises, that the nature of dependency is largely unnatural and intentional. The human desire to keep animals as pets in our homes has led to vulnerabilities being bred into species through centuries of domestication and is furthered by how a companion animal is raised since birth, to be fully dependent on their owner.
“Oh but Tuffy, doesn’t want to be away, he is always on my lap, he loves me too….”
We are yet to be able to communicate with other sentient beings scientifically, and thus it can be easily argued that outright consent might not be available, however, that seems too simplistic. So even if we agree that ‘Tuffy’ sleeping on your lap or wagging his tail is consent enough, critics have argued that with the nature of authority humans have in the institution of pet ownership, true consent can be hard to locate. Further, the nature of control, dependency and authority that exists in the institution of pet-keeping, creates for an environment that sociologists have long recognised to not be conducive for true consent when applied to humans. This can also be extended to nonhuman sentients who are compelled to live under the control of humans, are trained to adhere to human societal norms and human expectations, and those incapable of doing so may face punishment, sometimes resulting in severe consequences. It’s essential to recognise that while pets can exhibit affection and happiness and even form genuine bonds with humans, their acceptance within the pet-keeping system is entirely shaped by humans, often involving harsh corrections of their behaviour and the manipulative process of domestication. In essence, pets’ compliance and conduct are shaped by human influence, raising questions about the idea of their voluntary involvement in this relationship.
‘Tuffy’ might be family, but the law across the world deems companion animals to be the personal property of the owner. This characterization is underpinned by several examples illustrating the concept of pet ownership. When you acquire a pet, you typically receive ownership documentation, such as adoption certificates or registration papers, which explicitly denote you as the owner. Microchipping and registration further solidify this ownership status, with microchips being linked to the owner’s identity. Licensing and vaccination records, commonly required for pets, also emphasize the responsibility of the owner. Legal recourse is available in the event of pet theft, where the law treats such cases as theft of property, and owners have the right to pursue legal action to recover their pets. In matters of inheritance and bequests, pets can be designated as property, similar to other assets in a will. Moreover, owners are held liable for their pet’s behaviour, like any property owner is for damage caused by their possessions. Such a perspective in law becomes more morally ambiguous, as it often gives rights to pet owners, on their pet’s bodily autonomy as well. Sterilisation, tail-trimming, declawing, choosing breeding partners and euthanasia are all legally permissible, even if it’s controlled. Although, recent animal rights advancements have shifted the rationale for such practices from human-centric to the interests of the animals themselves, literature has emphasised the biopolitical control exerted by legal frameworks allowing such practices on non-human sentients.
It would be false to claim that pets are similar to inanimate property, as there exist laws and regulations that protect pets. Further reports have also suggested that pets statistically have longer lifespans than their stray counterparts. However, theorists like Gary Francione would argue that even that is not morally enough. Francione in extending moral rights theory proclaims that non-human animals possess an inherent moral entitlement to not be solely treated as tools for human benefit. This holds true regardless of whether the treatment is considered ‘humane’ or if humans could achieve favourable outcomes by using non-human animals. In essence, such a perspective of animal rights delineates itself from the utilitarian animal rights perspective of reducing pain and maximising pleasure. Francione is not concerned with the nature of the ownership, whether it is good or bad, but rather the moral right of animals to not be property. As long as a pet is legally one’s property the owner has the ability to control and treat them as they wish. The key question that he hints at is, if pets were indeed humans would we be okay with them being personal property, looking at history it seems the answer is simply, No.
In the end, ‘Tuffy’ might remain snug on your lap, his tail wagging in apparent joy, and you might swear he loves you to bits. But amidst the snug cuddles and playful antics, the underlying question of whether our furry, feathered, or scaly companions can ever truly provide informed and voluntary consent remains enigmatic. The very nature of authority, control, and dependency which frames the pet-keeping institution challenges the concept of consent, leaving us with more questions than definitive answers. While your pets may offer you unwavering loyalty and affection, their identity as legally designated property muddles the waters of morality and ethics.
