Name:

Professor:

Course:

Date:

In this paper I will argue against the case against pets when the proponents of the article suggest that a morally just society would only translate to a world with no pets, no zoos, no sheep fields, no cow barns and no aquaria as the true definition of animal rights. This argument is misleading as achieving animal rights does not rely entirely on allowing animals to live on their own without any human interference. Human beings can only promote justice for animals by ensuring that they make various interventions that seek to protect the rights of animals in their capacity as non-humans rather than comparing animal justice to human perception of justice.

The first argument made by the writer of the article is that domestication of animals is a violation of essential animal rights is vague and misleading. It is difficult for one to define animal rights because as nature dictates, the relationship between human beings and animals is mutually and neither can exist without the other. If instance, if by ensuring that animals were to be left in the world on their own, even if they would not be regulated by human beings, they are likely to face hostility from other predators that are stronger than them. This means that naturally even if human beings were not to domesticate animals for food or for their own use, they would still have to face hostilities from nature. Predation from other animals in the world would mean that the animals that are already domesticated would be facing extinction in the forest as their reproduction and survival would be reliant on conditions in the world.

Promoting animals’ rights is morally unachievable as non-human animals cannot think and make moral decisions like humans. Animal rights are not meant to exist in a vacuum just as human rights. The human rights are often regulated and governed based on set principles and laws that must be adhered to. When human being violates certain set policies and laws, the validity of their rights can be suspended and then allowed to face the consequences of their actions. Promoting animal rights in the sense of human rights can be difficult as animals do not have the common sense that allows them to act within the set principles and laws. It could also be difficult in ensuring that non-human animals can bear the consequences of their actions that are likely to cause damage and harm to other animals or humans.

The argument that non-human animals should not be treated as property is misleading as fundamentally, humans are the only animals that have ability to exploit other animals for their continued benefit. Non-humans can only benefit from other animals if they can use them as food and this is true for carnivores. Human beings should have the right to exploit domesticated animals such as hens, cows, and horses for their benefit. Human beings are intelligent animals and they cannot be compared to other non-animals. Ensuring that non-human animals are not treated as chattel property simply equates to comparing animals to human beings and although animals have their own rights, such rights should not be similar to human rights. Animal rights should be promoted on the basis and based on a set animal welfare criteria without having to compare them with human rights.

The argument that there is need for animals not to be treated as property as a basis for promoting non-human rights and reducing standardized exploitation of such animals is misleading. Many countries globally have performed certain non-human animal rights that seek to ensure that there is no institutionalized exploitation of animals. Rights such as access to medical care, right to decent housing, right to belong to a family are already being implemented in various countries and domesticated animals’ rights have been protected. Such acts have promoted animal’s welfare, and instead of promoting radicalized changes to the approach to animal rights, animal rights advocates should seek to strengthen such gains.

The authors of the article argue that they are objected to about 99.99% of the humans use other non-human animals. They only consider using animals for medical research as the only gainful and rightful use of non-human animals. If such an argument is put into context, it could be explained to mean that human beings should cease exploiting non-human animals. Although research has shown that vegetarian diets are healthier compared to eating animal products, some animal products such as eggs and milk are still nutritious and can be obtained without having to torture or violate animal rights. The argument that all human use of animals is terminated would be a tall order that cannot be achieved and instead of focusing on unachievable objectives, it would be important for animal right activists to focus on how they can foster a mutual relationship between animals and human beings. This mutual relationship should seek to achieve minimal violation of animal rights while ensuring human needs from animals are met in an acceptable manner.

The argument against the domestication of the basis of the inability for animals to willingly be in an interdependent relationship with human beings is limiting in nature. For instance, although human relationships are mutual and require each party’s consent, adults have the responsibility to guide the relationships that minors have with others. This is because minors as like animals like the capacity to make sound decisions on what is right and in their best interest. The article does not acknowledge the inherent responsibility that humans have in promoting peaceful co-existence between nature and manipulating natural systems for mutual benefit. Domestication of animals in homes or the zoos or aquaria has been proven as a way though with humans have successfully prevented the extinction of non-human animals and animal rights advocates should promote such initiatives.