Results 1 to 15 of 15
Animals and Property
So one of the things I've been trying to wrap my head around is the question "Are animals property?"
I've generally come to the conclusion that people don't have "ownership" over animals, but instead a sort of "relationship" with them.
When discussing most animal-human relationships I'm fine with saying "The cow isn't your property, don't treat it like it is."
But when discussing more domestic animals, such as pets or service animals, I start thinking it brings up ethical problems. If I have a animal-human relationship with a service dog, what right do I have to keep the animal with me, rather than letting it be "the public dog" so to speak.
Thoughts?
Well currently there are indeed some animals that are considered "property". Like if you're a farmer obviously you'll consider your livestock to be yours, considering it's your source of income. Pets are a lot more of a grey area since they're not being used simply for profit, but as companions.
Economic Left/Right: -9.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15
"There are decades when nothing happens; and there are weeks when decades happen." - Lenin
Speaking of pets, not livestock...
Property is a bad way to put it. I wouldn't consider any of my pets "property". They are my responsibility, and I do support them physically and financially.
But if I opened my front door right now (and walked away) they'd all run out and I don't know if I'd ever see them again. Maybe, maybe not. The fact that I'm not allowing that to happen has to do with their safety, above all, but also with the fact that I do feel some sort of ownership over them. So whether or not I want to consider them "property" isn't completely relevant, because I'm not going to relinquish ownership of them.
If you're willing to relinquish ownership of your pets, I think you could say they aren't property. If not, you are at least treating them like property.
///
Think of slaves. Do we consider any human life to be "property" today? No. Not most of us anyway. That was entirely different, say, 150 years ago. It has everything to do with context. At this point in time, we still consider animals property. That might change soon, it might not. It might not ever change since animals cannot fight for themselves. It has a lot to do with your personal relationship to them, and also a lot to do with historical context. But I don't think we could objectively decide which living thing is property and which is not (unless we were to decide that NO living thing is property, that is). It's all in your actions.
Animals constitute property under the law, that is unambiguous.
The property status of animals usually determines how anti-cruelty and animals welfare laws are interpreted by courts: if the animal is being treated in the customary and socially accepted way for that particular property use, then there cannot be "cruelty" or any legal redress for the animal.
Thus, if you kick your cow for no reason (just for shits and giggles; you are bored and the screams of the cow amuse you) you may be prosecuted for cruelty, even though the cow is your property. But if you slit your cow's throat, carve up its corpse and sell its body on for food, then that is perfectly acceptable.
In the former case you are just being sadistic, and this is condemnable. In the latter case, you are "improving" the cow into an economic commodity, and thus this is praiseworthy.
The law doesn't care at all that in the first case the cow may just be bruised, while in the second the cow suffered tremendously and died. As long as animals are considered property under our legal systems, the moral interests of animals can never be respected. Animal liberation requires the overthrow of private property.
for freedom and peace
If they are sentient, they are not property. Period.
Hargreaves, how would you see your philosophy play out on a practical level?
What happens to the local cows, or the house dog, etc.
What happens to projects that attempt to save species? Pandas in captivity and the like.
How do we define a healthy human-animal relationship?
The baseline is that animals should not be property, and should not be bought and sold as commodities. As I said, I don't believe this is possible under a system of private property. We need communism. Thankfully I'm a communist anyway, so this is a happy conclusion for me.
The basic right of animals is a right to be left alone by humans: think of it as a kind of "anti-colonial" position for animals and nature as against humans.
So: There is no inherent worth to keeping animal numbers high or keeping species alive, if this involves badly treating animals in the here-and-now. Animals don't exist in the aggregate, they are individual beings. If we stopped eating meat, the number of cows and pigs would drastically decrease, but this is nothing to mourn.
Sure, it is a great thing to adopt an unwanted dog from a kennel and keep it as a companion animal, but it is another thing to support the semi-industrial breeding of animals by some companies for people to buy as pets. See the difference?
The same goes for zoos: most of the time, zoos are not successful in protecting animal species from distinction. But even if they were, this would not be much of an excuse for keeping a wild endangered animal in a cramped cage. We would do far better if we stopped destroying its natural habitat in the first place.
for freedom and peace
Maybe not strictly on-topic, but as the subject of individual human-animal relationships has been brought up, I couldn't help but think of a certain Mr Deleuze...
+ YouTube Video
All animal industry should be abolished. A happy animal-human relationship is one based on autonomy, not entitlement.
"whatever they might make would never be the same as that world of dark streets and bright dreams"
http://youtu.be/g-PwIDYbDqI
I suppose this goes to a split between animals that are commodity, (Livestock, dogs bred for appearance, etc.) and animals that humans have working relationships with. (Horses, working dogs, cats as pest control, etc.)
I think I'm beginning to understand.
Animals and Property
If people ask, is that your dog? I will always respond "the dog lives with me and is a part of my family, but I don't claim ownership." That would throw them for a loop.
Pets are animals as "personal property" kept by people for their use-value (unless they are kept by a pet store for selling). Animals used for production are for extracting exchange value... This relationship is what causes the most abuse; packing animals together in small spaces, pumping them full of hormones so they grow faster, etc. Property in the abstract, that his "possession" by humans, doesn't inherently lead to abuse... In fact being a pet is probably a better life for many animals. Beasts of bourdon can also be kept just for direct use value and they were probably treated better by owners; older customs surrounding animals used in food and farming reflect this. Usually these customs are attributed to people living closer to these animals in daily life, but really I think there was a practical side: treat animals better and get more use out of their labor in the long-run, treat food providing animals better and you get more and better food. A chicken pumped with hormones is't better for eating or tasting, but it's better for Turing flesh into cash.
Whether or not animals are property seems like a semantic issue more than anything else, because when it really comes down to it, whether or not a cow is someones "property" does not affect whether or not it's a bad idea to set all of the cows free. They'd just die.
Our pets are not property, they are mutual persons who we care for and live with. We do not have the right to abuse them or use them. Livestock are not pets but should still be used without being abused.
In positivist/descriptive terms, yes, pets are property. You may feel like your dog is a family member etc. and not just a thing you own, but in terms of the actual law he/she is your property.
In terms of our property law, a dog we have lived with and loved for 10 years is indistinguishable from a toothbrush or a bag of potato chips.
This attitude is basically everything I was arguing against in my first post. Of course livestock (how is a sentient, individual life your "stock" ? We need to seriously question our everyday language regarding animals) shouldn't be "abused", and there are existing laws to deal with this. But morally they shouldn't be "used" either, and on that topic the law has nothing to say.
for freedom and peace
