Animal Ethics - should we call them pets?
Source: Max Roeleveld
In this day and age of political correctness, a new debate is now raging over the ethics of the way that we regard the millions of species that share our environment. As animal lovers, there are always campaigns to save and protect our wildlife species, whether endangered or not, and quite rightly so. However, a new debate has arisen over the terminology that we use to describe our association with the animal kingdom and, in particular, using the words 'pet', 'master' and 'owner' to describe our relationship with the domestic animals that share our homes and lives.
The Journal of Animal Ethics, published by the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, argues that the use of these words is derogatory and demeaning to animals. Whilst the words 'master' and 'owner' could be thought of as past terminology of slavery, most people would think that dropping the word 'pet' in favour of something like 'animal companion' would be going a little bit too far. 'Pet' is really a term of endearment and is not thought of as a derogatory word at all.
The Oxford Centre of Animal Ethics (OCAE) believes that animals are sentient creatures that have feelings and that we should treat them, not as objects or possessions, but as living, breathing, creatures that have emotions. Whilst these sentiments can be understood and agreed with by all animal lovers and by 'human carers', (the term suggested by the OCAE) what we call something in the human language is surely our choice? The word 'pet' is seen by the OCAE to be demeaning and insulting and belittling to the creatures that share our lives.
The words 'master' and 'owner' hark back to the days of slavery and imply that we own these animals that share our lives. However, in legal terms, we do own our pets. We may have exchanged money for them and, as such, we have bought them and they are a 'possession' of ours. However, as they are living and breathing, should they really be thought of as possessions in a similar way to inanimate objects. Consequently, it may be possible to see that being an 'owner' or 'master' of an animal could be belittling the relationship we actually have with our pets. However, when it comes to dogs and obedience, we have to appreciate that, as humans, we need to be able to share our lives with a well-behaved creature. As such, there need to be rules, rules which are set down by one (a human master) and followed by another (the dog). Consequently, the relationship between the two is not really an equal one as one is in charge of the other. But then, with our children, we set boundaries too but don't think of ourselves as being 'masters' of our children. Maybe 'human carers' is more appropriate as the rules we set our dogs are for their well-being and benefit as much as ours.
In ethical terms, it could be said that there is a strong argument, therefore, to replace 'owner' and 'master' with the term 'human carer'. After all, that's what we are! And, as a broad, generic term, it can be applied to farm animals too. However, whilst the term 'animal companion' describes quite accurately our relationship with our domestic friends, the term 'pet' does not really have any negative associations. So why change it? Just who does it make a difference to? After all, our pets do not understand our language and the meaning behind the words we use.
Surely, loving, caring for and respecting the animals that share our home is the most important thing, not how we refer to them. Animals only understand the way that we speak to them, the softness or firmness of our voices. The morals and ethics of how we treat them is surely more important than what we call them.
Petside: Get Started
-
- Kitten Life
Learn about the different life stages of your Kitten and much more!
-
- Puppy Life
Everything you need to know about raising a Puppy, all in one place! Check it out.
-
- Find a Breed
Browse dog and cat breeds to find your perfect pal.
-
- Diagnose a Condition
Use PetVet to research what's ailing your pet.
Comments (0)
add your comment