A Welfarist Approach to (Utilitarian) Pet Ownership

Note: I am not judging any person in this opinion.
I am not telling any other person how to act.

I am only telling you the moral justification for MY actions. 


I am not telling you not to have pets.
I am only justifying my actions.
I am only explaining why I no longer will keep animals as pets.

--
Here is a Facebook post by Dr. Gary Francione, 
whom I consider to be one of the the greatest living 
philosophers of ethics, perhaps of the last 200 years.
 
He has written several books on Animal Rights, both for a popular audience,
and also technical books on the topic for academics.
He is also a Constitutional Scholar and professor of these topics.

Gary really clarified several key points for me 
not only about ethics, but also concerning 
why legal autonomy is necessary for sentient creatures,
and how the concept of property and utilitarianism 
are contrary to that end (and the cause of much violence).


The sum of his work in this area is to show
with great clarity and without any doubt 
that Abolitionism is Preferable to Welfarism
and the necessity for ethical beings to live a vegan lifestyle.

I have been surprised because on Facebook, Gary has published
photos of "death row dogs", and Gary has advocated adoption as
the solution to "death row dogs", with spay/neutering as a necessary
part of humane pet ownership.

I find this very curious, because it is quite clear to me that
adoption is the cause, not the solution, and that spay/neuter is 
just another form of violence. Why? To satisfy utilitarian human
needs.

This seems to me utterly contradictory of Gary's previous
writing which has inspired me so greatly.  

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights

Do animals matter morally? If so, make sure four words are part of your vocabulary: vegan, educate, adopt, foster.

(photo credit: cuio)

Like · · Share · 72 · 4 hours ago ·

• 7 people like this.

BH Response:

I am an animal adoption abolitionist. I am surprised and frankly shocked that my friend and AR hero -- for whom I have greatest respect and gratitude, Dr. Gary Francione, is not also.

IT IS AN INDISPUTABLE FACT the human domestication of dogs, cats, cows, sheep, pigs, and other animals is the cause of great suffering. The domestication of Cats alone requires the slaughter of many conscious, sentient beings.

If we "ethically" take in dogs, we must never use a leash, and we must feed our dogs a vegan diet (or let them hunt).

BUT-- then WE MUST EITHER sexually restrain them (coercion with force, violence) to prevent them from breeding, or perform sexual surgery on them, sterilization (again, violence, use of non-consensual force). Or we allow them to breed and either return the babies to the wild, OR we must "humanely" slaughter them. There is no other choice.

NOTE WELL that it seems to be impossible to keep EITHER dogs or cats without the use of non-consensual force (violence) towards sentient beings.

If one supports adoption as a means of "minimizing the violence" which is inherently necessary for humans to "have pets" as objects to satisfy utilitarian purposes, then I would suggest one is a Utilitarian and a Welfarist.

In fact, there is no depravity which cannot be justified for Utilitarian purposes. Welfarism is a convenient belief which helps justify the game.

I call on all TRUE ANIMALS LOVERS to become an Animal Adoption Welfarists. Becoming vegan means not only a non-violent diet, but also NO PETS.