Slavery is traditionally defined as the ownership of one human by another. If we accept that animals are the Subject of a Life (SOAL) then this throws new light on our concept of ownership over nonhuman animals. While there are provisions for animal welfare attached to ownership laws, the fundamental relationship between a human and an nonhuman pet is owner and owned.
Owning a human is clearly different from owning an animal because any human slave's innate capacity to be a rational agent in society is being suppressed when in reality she is completely able to take care of herself given the resources to do so. An animal such as a dog kept as a pet is unlike an enslaved human because that dog is incapable of supporting itself in a nonhuman environment due to it's genetic domesticated genetic heritage and being raised in a domestic setting. However, the SOAL criteria clearly demarcate those animals that are enSOALed as valuing entities that, to some degree, value themselves, unlike ordinary nonhuman objects.
How does being a valuer make animals different? The most basic difference for SOALs is that since they value their lives and have interests they have the right not to have their interests arbitrarily ignored. This right makes those animals situation different because it refutes the model of animal welfare, where animals are still owned but because we value them they are given protections, instead animals value themselves and thus we are obliged to treat them morally.
However, does SOALhood obviate the end of human ownership of animals? Can animals be properly considered their own owners because of their ability to value themselves? Certainly human ownership of animals is clearly demarcated from the ownership of SOALless objects, and maybe a more viable way to view our relationship with pets is guardianship rather than ownership.
You bring up many great points, and I agree as an owner of two dogs who I consider to be my family, we should view our relationship with pets as more of a guardianship than ownership, even though pets our moral patients. The issue of pets, or any domesticated animals who we provide for in general seems different than other animal rights issue. Even though these pets do deserve just as many rights over themselves as humans do, without us they would not be able to provide for themselves. It is different to "own" or "care for" a dog or cat than to own a cow or a pig just to slaughter them and use them as food, no matter ones personal view on the matter. To bring up your point of slavery, it is possible that maybe hundreds of years from now, humans will view what we are doing to animals today as a form of slavery. It may seem crazy now, but think about how just over a century ago our society viewed people with a certain skin color, today we think of it as crazy and one of the worst human rights violations in our worlds history. I am not trying to compare what happens to animals today to slavery in our country, but it is certainly something to keep in mind, how the slaughtering of animals will be viewed hundreds of years from now. Good post, many great points to consider!
ReplyDelete