When someone accepts responsibility for a pet, what are the moral and ethical imperatives they are (or should be) committing to? What is the appropriate context for making decisions about whether the pet is to be kept safely indoors (probably living longer) or let free to roam outdoors (with all the risks that carries)? Or whether to give an ailing pet expensive surgery or have them put them to sleep? Some people feel that their pet is deserving of or entitled to the same care as their own children. Others feel some lesser committment is sufficient. And so on. How does one make such decisions if not by analogy to ones obligations to other humans, which many of us fail to fulfill anyway?

Comments

The way you put this question seems to presuppose an approach to ethical reasoning that is driven by rules (imperatives). For those of us attracted to others approaches (in my case, virtue theory), it is difficult to respond to your inquiry in that form. Moreover, I think the context in which you plan to have the pet and what kind of pet you plan to have are extremely significant. Consider how differently one should answer questions like yours if the pets in question are goldfish or dogs. So let's assume you mean a very standard pet, such as a dog or a cat. Now, do you live in the country, where the dog is not going to foul sidewalks, potentially menace pedestrians or bicyclists, be at risk for being hit by a car (which could also put others at risk, from drivers swerving to avoid hitting your pet), or attack others' pets in the street? If the context is a city or similar, then it looks like you will be obliged to keep your dog leashed at all times when outside the home. In the case of a cat, it is difficult to think what a good ground could be for allowing the animal to go outside in a city environment. In the country, are their predators (or dogs!) around that might attack the cat? Are there livestock that a dog or cat might jeopardize?

In general, I think a rule of thumb would be to consider the morally significant elements of the environment in question (such as those I mention above), and then consider your animal's own needs and welfare as well as your readiness to deal with these in a humane and loving way. You might also consider whether adopting an animal likely to be euthanized at the local animal shelter wouldn't be a better idea than buying some fancy breed--and then be sure to neuter the animal. As for the resources you are prepared to spend on the animal, consider balancing these against other possible uses for those resources, if it looks like extraordinary care is going to be required--without neglecting the reasons you have a pet in the first place, which strict consequentialists might not find morally supportable, but which seem to me to be morally significant in themselves.

Read another response by Nicholas D. Smith

Read another response about Animals, Ethics