In this episode, David discusses the ways in which humans keep and use animals, the way this has changed over time, the moral implications of animal captivity, and possible ways forward.
Contents:
- introduction
- animals as resources
- animals as labour-saving devices
- pets–domesticated
- pets–wild
- animals for research
- animals for entertainment
- counterarguments
My email address:
david.tonner2010@gmail.com
Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100083209401005
https://www.facebook.com/dtonner
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/reasoned_intuitions/
https://www.instagram.com/tonner_david/
In this episode, David discusses the ways in which humans keep and use animals, the way this has changed over time, the moral implications of animal captivity, and possible ways forward.
Contents:
- introduction
- animals as resources
- animals as labour-saving devices
- pets–domesticated
- pets–wild
- animals for research
- animals for entertainment
- counterarguments
My email address:
david.tonner2010@gmail.com
Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100083209401005
https://www.facebook.com/dtonner
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/reasoned_intuitions/
https://www.instagram.com/tonner_david/
Pets and Animal Captivity
Welcome to the Reasoned Intuitions podcast. My name is David Tonner, and I discuss personal ideas on moral issues in modern society and try to come up with improved ways of thinking and behaving, in the hopes of becoming a better person and causing the least amount of harm. As a disclaimer, I'd like to state that I am not an expert in either philosophy, psychology, or anything else, for that matter.
My opinions and positions are provisional and open to change with new information or an improved understanding of the issues I discuss. My intent is not to provide definitive rules or to tell anyone how they should live their life. I merely want to share my ideas and insights, in the hopes that they can be inspirational or in some way helpful.
I employ pragmatic ethics and try to reason from as broad and objective a perspective as possible. Some of my basic assumptions are that unchosen suffering is bad, and we should strive to minimize it. Joy is the most pleasurable sensation, and thus we should strive to maximize it. Empathy is universal, with some exceptions, and it should be the starting point of any good ethical system.
Hello and welcome to another episode of Reasoned Intuitions. In season one of the podcast, I talked about how and why we value humans more than non-human animals, and I discussed animal rights in a general sense. I promised that I would come back to the topic, and in this episode, I'm going to focus on pets and other contexts in which we keep animals in captivity. This will be the first of a three-part episode, and in future segments, I'll delve into sport hunting and what I think are ideal ways that we should approach our relationships and interactions with animals overall.
Please keep in mind that the basis of my moral considerations is the avoidance of suffering and increase of joy, and this is the lens from which I will evaluate the implications of the different ways we exploit animals.
There are five broad categories that encompass the ways in which humans keep animals captive. Since the dawn of humanity, we've exploited animals as a resource, including for food and the use of their body parts. From the time that we became farmers, we've also utilized animals for labour-saving purposes. We keep animals as companion pets, and in modern times, for research purposes. Of course, most controversially, we also use animals for our entertainment. I'm going to go through each of these categories and share my thoughts on them.
Let's start with the way we exploit animals for the resources they provide. Since humans learned to fashion tools, we have been able to kill or capture animals in order to consume them and use other parts of their bodies such as hides, fur, bones, etc. There is nothing unnatural about this, as of course, nature thrives on predation, one animal feeding off another, obtaining resources necessary for life in whatever way possible. Meat, eggs, and milk are nutrient-rich, and without them, it would be much more challenging for humans to obtain the diets we require to survive and thrive. There are populations in the world today that still predominantly rely on animals as a source of food, such as the Inuit people of the Arctic, simply because plant-based foods are rare, if not completely non-existent in certain regions, especially during winter.
I'm not going to fall back on a naturalistic argument in order to establish right and wrong, both because I think it's a flawed starting point, and because I doubt it's necessary. As humans have evolved, not only have we found ways of optimizing our nutrition from plants, we have also developed our sense of empathy towards species other than our own. These two trends have gradually led us away from depending primarily on animals as a source of food. As we advance further technologically, we get better and better at replicating the nutrients we obtain from animal flesh, as well as other materials we derive from their bodies, such as leather and fur, and as our understanding of animal welfare increases, the argument for killing and eating animals becomes weaker. This is certainly true in developed nations, but as prosperity increases around the world and technology becomes more accessible to everyone, it also allows more people to shift their thinking away from the traditional idea that eating meat is right, or necessary. Today, at the scale required to feed a global population of 8 billion people—that's right, we just crossed 8 billion—it is not possible to raise animals and produce meat in a way that avoids suffering, and since I don't think we can ever convince enough people to become vegetarian, I believe we must rely on technology to help us eliminate the tremendous amount of suffering that livestock animals experience every single day of their life in order to satisfy human appetites.
Similar arguments can be made for the use of animals as labour-saving devices, or for work more generally. Traditionally, people have ridden horses, donkeys, and camels for transportation; farmers used oxen for plowing fields; and other working animals have included elephants, dogs, and even pigeons.
To this day, we still commonly employ dogs as service animals for disabled people. We use bees to make honey, worms for silk, etc. Just as with the use of animals as resources technology has allowed us to move away from most of these exploitative practices so that nowadays, in most parts of the world, we don't ride on the backs of animals out of necessity, nor do we need them to plow our fields, carry loads, or deliver messages.
The ways in which we still use animals usually involve far less suffering than forced labour, if any at all, and some are just gray areas, such as beekeeping or the breeding of silkworms—simply because we don't have a clear idea about whether or not insects can suffer. I'll touch more on this gray area in the last segment of this three-part episode.
In my view, and from the perspective of animal welfare and the elimination of suffering, I think an optimal future would be one where no animals are used for work, unless we are confident that this in no way decreases their quality of life. One area where this might already be the case is the use of service dogs. Dogs are not only domesticated, but they have been closely bonded with humans for millennia, and to the best of my understanding, they benefit from this close relationship and even enjoy the tasks that we make them perform, like helping blind people get around.
This is a perfect segue to talking about pets. Pet ownership is largely non-controversial, at least to most of us, and it is certainly something that all cultures practice to varying degrees. We keep pets, both domesticated and wild, around the home for pleasure and companionship.
Domestication is the process by which humans have enhanced specific traits, such as docility, and removed others, like aggression. Most animals have not been successfully domesticated, and those that have either serve as our pets, food, or tools. All around the world, the most common domesticated pets are dogs and cats, and these two animals have a long history of co-evolution alongside human beings. Domestic dogs evolved from wolves, and the lineage of the house tabby can be traced back to something called the African wildcat. There is strong evidence to suggest that, in a manner of speaking, they both domesticated themselves, by which I mean that gradually, over the course of time, the benefits that these animals derived from living in proximity to humans softened some of their more aggressive traits and made it easier for us to include them in our daily lives. This was largely due to the abundance of food available in human settlements as well as the safety that our presence provided.
Over numerous generations, humans selectively bred specific traits in these two animals that were useful to us, and arguably, our relationship with dogs and cats has always been symbiotic. Nowadays, both dogs and cats are able to live in our homes without too many restrictions on their freedoms, and both species enjoy long and rich lives as our pets, certainly in comparison to their wild cousins.
Other domesticated animals we keep as pets include rodents such as mice, rats, hamsters, and guinea pigs, and also rabbits, goldfish, and some types of birds, like canaries. Unfortunately, even though they are domesticated, most pets apart from dogs and cats have to be restrained or caged. For a variety of reasons, including escape, we don't let our pets roam freely. We place them in a small confined space, where we can look at them and which they can never leave. Now, you might think this isn't a problem since, after all, as long as they get fed, they have sufficient space in which to move as well as some degree of stimulation, they're fine. What more could an animal ask for?
I agree that in most cases, it would be difficult to demonstrate that a hamster, a canary, or goldfish suffers for lack of freedom, but I would argue that it's just this lack of liberty that makes placing animals in cages or tanks immoral.
All animals display an instinctive drive to escape their bonds when they are held in captivity, from insects all the way to humans. Whether or not living in a confined space causes the animal to suffer isn't always clear, as the fish swimming around your tank seems happy enough, but knowing that this instinct exists in all animals should be enough to give us pause. After all, if the sole reason we choose to place restraints on the movements of autonomous beings is the brief pleasure we derive from it, can it truly be justified on moral grounds? I think not.
As I mentioned before, dogs and cats may be the only exceptions in this regard, as they have essentially chosen to live with us, and we don't keep them in cages, but the same cannot be said of other animals we keep as pets.
The same points can be made about keeping wild pets, but in fact, the reasons why this is morally impermissible are even more numerous. Wild pets include most birds, such as parrots and cockatoos, most types of aquarium fish, all reptiles such as snakes, lizards, and turtles, spiders, scorpions, insects, and if you're a particularly demented and narcissistic person with too much money, large animals like tigers, cheetahs, sharks, or even hippos. Wild animals either have to be caught and removed from their natural habitats, essentially stolen from their homes, or bred in a facility where their wellbeing is certainly not a priority. The ethical ramifications of this include wild species depletion, the environmental cost of long-distance transportation, the trauma such displacement can cause to the individual animals, as well as the rate of incidental death that occurs throughout this entire process. For these reasons, I see absolutely no moral justification for keeping wild pets.
The next area in which humans use animals is research, both for science and medicine, as well as more cosmetic applications, so to speak. This is also one of those gray areas that I mentioned earlier. It's a gray area because even though the use of animals in research causes unspeakable suffering and almost always leads to their death, the benefits we derive from successful results of this research are so important that I have trouble arguing against it. I would be a hypocrite if I stated that I'm opposed to life-saving medical treatments that were tested on animals, especially if the time ever came when I needed such an intervention myself. Having said that, I fully support a ban on the use of animals in cosmetic testing. I find this practice highly unethical, and I can't see how the benefits outweigh the harms, on a moral level.
Now, I acknowledge that cosmetics are important to people. I also acknowledge that they have applications which can dramatically improve a person's life. Lastly, I concede that as a straight, cisgendered man, my insight into the importance of cosmetics is limited, as I'm simply not the target demographic for this huge market.
The field of cosmetics encompasses such a broad range of products, many of which are about far more than mere vanity, so I'm open to changing my mind on this topic, but as things stand now, it's an industry I cannot ethically endorse.
Lastly, and most controversially, there is the use of animals for entertainment. This is something I find so abominable, that it surprises me how common and accepted it still remains. Or perhaps not. In times past, humans derived pleasure from watching animals suffer in a variety of ways, and they often inflicted that torment themselves. This included animals fighting other animals as well as humans fighting and torturing animals. Nowadays, these practices are thankfully rare, though certainly not unheard of. Dog fighting, cock fighting, bullfights, and sport hunting still take place all over the world, and while each one of these forms of entertainment have and continue to face popular opposition, and various jurisdictions have banned them outright, we still live in a world where animals suffer and die for no other reason than our sensory pleasure.
Humans have also enjoyed watching animals perform in circuses, something which is becoming quite rare these days, but dog shows and horse races continue without much controversy. And let's not forget zoos. What is the justification for holding animals behind bars? Zookeepers might argue it's for research or conservation purposes, and that might partially be true, but if we're being honest, the primary, and often only reason why zoos exist is for human entertainment—so we can go look at depressed animals pacing back and forth in an enclosure far from their natural habitat. Zoos are a business, a way to generate revenue, and while a select few of them engage in useful research and try to help endangered species reintegrate into the wild, most of them don't.
If displaying animals to the public was a productive way of funding animal conservation, and if it meant that a few individuals had to lead less-than-ideal lives in confinement for the sake of an entire species, perhaps I could get behind it, but my understanding is that species conservation is extremely complex, and the success rate for reintegration is dismally low, so for this reason, I can't support zoos.
Additionally, the educational value of keeping animals in zoos is trivial, in my opinion. I don't quite see what children on a field trip can learn from watching wild creatures leading unstimulated lives of inactivity from behind glass. Surely, a nature documentary has far more informational benefit, and as a bonus, it doesn't involve the violent capture, traumatic transport, and lifelong incarceration of an autonomous being—Yay!
Counterarguments: resources – practical
Now, let's address some arguments in support of the human use and keeping of animals. Practical arguments in support of utilizing the resources we obtain from animals, either for food or materials, usually relate to the dietary necessity, or benefits, of consuming animal products, and the practicality of using their body parts, such as leather.
While I personally don't eat meat and generally avoid eggs and dairy, I don't claim to be a perfect vegetarian or vegan, and I have neither the time nor the expertise to delve very deeply into the topic of nutrition. My understanding is that while eating meat and other animal products in moderation is nutritionally beneficial to humans, it isn't critical to our survival.
I acknowledge that some people struggle on a plant-based diet for various reasons, and communities in remote parts of the world have little other choice than to depend on animals for their sustenance. However, for most people, it is possible to be healthy while subsisting on a plant-based diet, perhaps supplemented with specific vitamins. Additionally, we already have the technology to replicate all the dietary products we obtain from animals without needing to breed and kill them, so I think that before long, it'll be possible to avoid raising animals for food entirely.
I'll make a similar argument for leather, where we have various synthetic materials that do a good enough job in the place of animal skin, so I don't think there is a strong argument to continue using leather, especially as this technology improves.
There are also philosophical arguments in support of continuing to eat meat, which usually invoke the idea that it is natural, all animals eat other living organisms, we have done it since the beginning of time, therefore, there's nothing wrong with. This argument is trivially easy to dismiss on two counts: One, that type of pleading is called the naturalistic fallacy, and it assumes that if something is natural, it must therefore also be good. We know this to be false, as there are plenty of natural things that are neither good nor desirable, such as lethal viruses or destructive weather events. Natural dose of Covid-19, anyone? How about a natural wildfire? No takers?
More importantly, the argument can be dismissed on the basis of the suffering–joy equation. While something may be natural and age-old, if it causes unnecessary suffering, it is wrong and should be avoided, plain and simple.
There are few practical arguments in support of continuing to use animals in the context of work, especially in the developed world. In countries where modern technology is still inaccessible, some of these practices continue, but it appears clear to me that as people in these regions prosper and gain access to modern labour-saving tools, they will move away from exploiting animals, as we have done in most of the world.
Some exceptions include our continued use of support animals, especially seeing-eye dogs and sniffer dogs. I touched on this briefly earlier, mentioning that it doesn't seem to me that these highly trained puppers are unhappy or experience suffering while performing their duties, and I would conclude that this type of relationship is mutually beneficial. Still, I imagine that at some point in the future, we will develop medical and technological enhancements that will circumvent our need to employ dogs at all, such as the restoration of sight and mobility and mechanical sniffing devices.
Arguments in support of keeping pets usually pertain to companionship and psychological support. This is difficult to refute, and I believe the value we derive from pet companionship is mutual, as the lives of dogs and cats can be tremendously enriched by living with people. So, while I feel strongly that we shouldn't keep animals in cages or capture them from the wild, I don't believe it's inappropriate for us to have dogs and cats as pets, assuming they're loved and cared for.
The biggest problem I have with that, however, is the methods in which we produce them. The most ethical way to obtain a dog or a cat nowadays is to adopt a rescue, but unfortunately, demand for pets far exceeds this supply—thankfully so—and there is a huge market for pet breeders to continue producing more. In theory, there should be nothing wrong with that, but in reality, the problems are rife. Everything from questionable breeding practices that cause suffering to the ways in which animals are confined and transported, with a focus on maximizing numbers rather than ensuring that each puppy or kitten is happy and comfortable, all the way to the often crippling health problems that arise from selectively breeding particular traits that we appreciate in dogs and cats, for nothing more than cosmetic purposes—essentially, our own vanity. Just like in the case of breeding livestock, when it's done in small numbers, with the appropriate amount of care, it involves minimal suffering to the animal, but the ever-increasing demand for pets essentially puts cottage-industry, caring breeders out of business; large-scale breeding with unrestrained profit motives almost always causes untold suffering.
So, what does this mean? Am I saying that keeping dogs and cats is unethical? This is another one of those gray areas that I don't have a clear position on. I think it's fine to have dogs and cats as pets, but only if we can be sure that in doing so, they or their siblings don't suffer and die.
Ultimately, as with anything we do and care about enough to consider in moral terms, the question comes down to whether or not our choices cause harm. Our actions can be valuable or disvaluable instrumentally, but the moral balance rests on only this: wellbeing and suffering.
Thank you again for listening, and as always, I look forward to your thoughts and feedback. Please feel free to leave me comments on social media or to send me email; I'll put all my links in the show notes. Also, I would love it if you could share my podcast with anyone you think might enjoy it or benefit from it—this is the best way to support me. Thank you again, and until next time.