In response to Sebastian's 'Companion Animals and the Law?'
I totally agree that we need to change the way we as a culture interact with our domestic animals. It is morally improper to 'own' an animal, and that concept of ownership of animals needs to change legally and culturally.
I wonder if regulation is the wrong approach. Certainly the state should play an active role in convincing people to change their opinions on nonhuman animals, but could we bring about the changes needed in our interaction with nonhuman animals without regulation.
The world isn't perfect, and some cases will fall through the cracks, but it seems to me that the largest issue confronting domestic animal's rights is our refusal to acknowledge their rights. Societies acknowledgement of animals rights needs to be our first priority
This is an interesting topic. I just wrote a post on the appropriateness of legal licensure, but this post raises an interesting question. I suppose I would still argue that licensure - that is, regulations by law - is morally appropriate, but I am not certain about its necessity, and, as you pointed out, something needs to change. I would also agree that among the most important changes is the societal change of recognition of the moral status of non-human animals.
ReplyDeleteIdeally, and we should work towards this, we would want a society in which there was little need for the laws and regulations because it would be socially unacceptable to 'own' non-human animals, and treat them in a way that is below their inherent moral value. I can also see how simply changing a law may not convince most people of their value. Many, I'd assume, would rebel against such laws and possibly treat animals worse. Still, I agree that we need to work on social recognition of animal rights (and many other rights issues on which we are painfully slow to change (i.e. gender, sexual orientation, et cetera).