But before accusing me of proposing to do away with your much-loved dog or cat (or fish or bird), let me clarify that I’m not advocating the hardline stance of some animal rights activists. In fact, I disagree in some respects with the reasoning espoused by groups or persons like, say, The Abolitionist Approach (http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/?page_id=73).

Ignoring the circular reasoning of the question, the Abolitionist Approach’s answer to “Does the institution of pet ownership violate animals’ basic right not to be regarded as things?” is a good place to discuss the issue of animal rights in relation to pet ownership.

“Pets are our property. Dogs, cats, hamsters, rabbits and other animals are mass produced like bolts in a factory or, in the case of birds and exotic animals, are captured in the wild and transported long distances, during which journey many of them die. Pets are marketed in exactly the same way as other commodities,” the FAQ says, and I have no disagreement here. Pets are, indeed, considered property, and I have to agree when the FAQ points out how many pets are abused, abandoned, and/or mutilated. I’ve seen dogs left in cars with the windows closed. Or alone in the backyard. I’ve heard of parents who foolishly buy rabbits or chicks for their children at Easter, only to get rid of them when they get bigger. And then, of course, there are the Michael Vicks of the world, and the puppy mills, and people training their dogs to run obstacle courses, using electrical shocks for discipline. There’s simply no doubt that many animals are victims of cruel, inhumane acts.

Is It All Animal Slavery?

But does this mean that we can move on from this to rejecting all “use” of animals by humans as “animal slavery,” as the Abolitionist Approach suggests? This is where the philosophy gets dicey. True, tradition isn’t an argument in favour of using animals the way we do. To say it’s “natural” to do with animals as we please is a severely flawed position to take. As the FAQ says, “it is interesting that when it is convenient for us to do so, we attempt to justify our exploitation of animals by resting on our supposed ‘superiority.’” And when our supposed “superiority” gets in the way of what we want to do, we suddenly portray ourselves as nothing more than another species of wild animal, as entitled as foxes to eat chickens.”

And yet, I can’t accept the conclusion that the hardline animal rights stand seems to imply, namely, that we need to completely dissociate animals (that is, sentient animals) from the way in which we live. While I agree that we need to stop encouraging the breeding of animals for pets since so many end up in shelters or on the streets, and we seriously need to reduce, if not eliminate, our consumption of meat for food and clothing, I don’t think it’s necessary to propose an endpoint in which no one lives with a cat or dog, or rides a horse, or keeps cows for milk.

It boils down to this. The Biblical view that the earth is our dominion and we are lords over the plants and animals is not a sustainable, practical or even moral view of ourselves and our place in the global ecosystem. In this sense, abolishing pet ownership makes sense, not treating animals as property to be disposed of as we see fit makes sense. Compassion demands that we consider their sentience, their capacity to suffer. The principle of ending one’s freedom where another’s begins must apply to all sentient beings, not just humans, to be a coherent philosophy of liberty.

Having said that, it’s too easy to dismiss as exploitation the relationship humans have developed with animals. As true as it is that, from a legal standpoint, even if we treat our animals like family members we retain the right to treat them as property, this doesn’t negate the fact many people do, indeed, treat their animals as members of the family. Not every “pet” is treated as a resource or economic commodity. Even in those instances where the animal provides a useful service – like horses who provide transportation – there is a symbiosis at play. In some ways, our relationship to animals is not necessarily different from our relationship to other people; we exchange benefits. Just as we might pay for a waiter to bring us our food, or a doctor to diagnose our ills, animals receive food, shelter, care. But by no means do we need to reduce any relationship to a mere economic transaction. There is certainly room for genuine affection.

By all means, let’s get rid of pet ownership. Let’s recognize the fact that we don’t have the right to inflict pain, suffering and death on animals simply because it suits us. Nor do we have the right to own animals, like that chimpanzee, simply to satisfy our own craving for the exotic. Some animal species are not simply suited for co-habitation with humans, no matter how cute and adorable, and their wild nature precludes vanity ownership.

Let’s take a cue from how we are re-casting our planetary role from master to caretaker. Instead of pet ownership, let’s have animal stewardship in which we take animal welfare seriously. By de-commoditizing animals, by changing their legal status from property to a kind of protected class, we take responsibility, as good stewards, for our actions on this fragile planet of ours.

Frédérik invites you to discuss this week's column and more at his blog (frederik-sisa.blogspot.com).