Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
The most reasonable pro-animal answer to this question is utilitarian: examining
cination). Some benefit the owner and cause pain and possible complications to the
pet without benefiting the animal (e.g., tail docking and ear cropping). Some involve
loss to the pet, which it need not necessarily experience as a loss (spaying, neuter-
ing). Given a paternalistic framework, the first kind are unproblematically moral. The
second are unproblematically immoral. The moral status of the third kind is complex:
humans would not be spayed and neutered even if such provided them with longer
lives, and so longevity does not trump the loss of sexual and procreative capacities.
On the other hand, conceiving of human-human action solely through paternalistic
terms is in itself already immoral. Moreover, unlike pets, the idea that some actions
are justified morally since they enable the owner-pet relationship to exist is also for-
eign to human-human morality.
Unlike human children, who would—hypothetically—grow up and could decide for
themselves whether they wish to lose their sexual abilities so as to live longer, com-
panion animals can never attain such autonomy. We make the decision for them. Is it
the right decision? I think that it is, for four reasons that concern the particular pet's
welfare as well as the welfare of other pets: first, as said, such actions promote the
pet's own longevity. Second, when one avoids anthropocentric dismay at the loss of
sexual or procreative capacities, no evidence suggests that the pet conceives of its
postoperative state as a loss (unlike us, cats and dogs have no consistent sex drive,
and once heating cycles are not created, there is no evidence that this loss is experi-
enced as undesirable). Third, many people will not have pets if this implies undertak-
ing responsibility for many potential offspring. Fourth, without spaying and neutering,
we will have many more abandoned animals that lead miserable lives, spread conta-
gious diseases among their species and others, and ultimately, may have to be killed
in shelters.
Invasive actions that benefit the pet are justified through a paternalistic framework
or through assuming that the owner-pet relationship is valuable and beneficial for
pets. Muting a parrot or a dog (unlike parrots, dogs are known to be muted in some
countries), tail docking, or ear trimming cannot obviously be excused through such
means. Euthanizing pets is usually conceptualized as an action on their behalf, and
ask for such a procedure for their cats many times will not keep their animals other-
wise. Such declawing can then benefit the pet. But sometimes the request for the
(painful) procedure stems from owner irresponsibility, not realizing the implication of
having a pet of a specific kind. If the person asking for the procedure does so be-
cause Kitty destroys her beloved sofa, there is a sense in which she should have
