Moral Obligations of Pet Ownership

Introduction

This paper looks to prove the hypothesis that animal do have rights and we as humans have some moral obligations being pet owners.

No direct moral obligation to animals

Specifically, these theories argue therefore that when, for no reason, you begin to violently hit a dog with a stick to the point of breaking the bone of the leg, you have committed no harm to the dog itself, even if you see screaming in pain. The only prejudice that you have committed is to have damaged the property of the dog's owner, who is human and therefore to whom you have an obligation to do no harm. But if the dog has no teacher for example, you should have no qualms, no guilt, to hit him. These theories are discredited simply by the fact that they do not give more homework, direct obligations towards children, since they either are not, according to these definitions, rational beings, have not language, etc (Francione, pp. 96).

Two different ethics: Respect for human person, the primacy of general interest for animals

Another way not to apply our morality to animals is to have two different ethics: one for humans, and another for animals, so that leads to the result we want, which is to continue to use animals for our convenience. This is frequently done to use:

the ethic of respect for the person when it comes to humans,

And utilitarianism when it comes to animals.

Moral philosophy of respect for the individual, this is typically the philosophy of human rights, humanism (or, in the field of ethics for animals, this is the philosophy of Tom Regan, for example): the idea that the individual has fundamental rights; he has an almost absolute respect, whatever the cost to the community. That is, for example, why is proscribed scientific experimentation on a human that would be very helpful to do so for the general interest? That is to say that we are depriving ourselves of something beneficial to the public interest to preserve the respect which we consider due to every human individual.

Specifically, in the case of scientific experimentation, we allow ourselves against by experimenting on animals, and yet we know well and we do not hide that it creates suffering, but we consider that this suffering is useful for the general interest. Note that this is precisely the proximity of men and animals that those experiments can be useful because it allows, it's true and I think also, in some cases save lives, helps people make advance treatments for humans (sometimes it's just as for a new oven cleaner or a bubble bath more) (Pacelle, pp. 121).

The only damage that counts is the physical pain

Another way of neglecting the interests of the animal, we have already seen, is the idea that the only damage that it can do is to make him suffer physically, to torture him, then its status of being sensitive has many other aspects that we bear damage. This illusion, coupled with the idea that if ...