Animals are not property say two Rutgers Law professors, Gary Francione and Anna Charlton wrote in online publication Aeon that “We oppose domestication and pet ownership because these violate the fundamental rights of animals.”
These two lawyers state that owing a pet is immoral and thus this should be considered torture the same as if humans were forced to endure the same treatment. My reply to this argument is that while the law considers animal property; the owners of pets do not treat their animals as slaves in any way and implying that domesticated animals have the same feelings as humans is unproven.
Yes our pets feel joy, pain, hunger and loneliness plus many other feelings. That I do not have any argument with, what I do have a problem with is the politically correct idea that our pets have the same feelings as human beings. People have been trying to imprint their own human feelings upon the animals that they own and encounter, be they domesticated or wild. This is a natural tendency that some of us have and it is a way of trying to understand the animals that live with us and the ones all around our environment.
We human beings tend to forget the facts about things, especially when we do not know our own history of these things. In this case this couple, who happen to have six dogs that they rescued, seem to not either know or care about how dogs came to be domesticated. Most experts agree that dogs come from wolves and evolved due to human intervention. Take a look at this article in the Smithsonian if you want to know more on the how.
Francione and Charlton state that “There are many laws that supposedly regulate our use of non-human animals. In fact, there are more such laws than there were laws that regulated human slavery. And, like the laws that regulated human slavery, they don’t work. These laws are relevant only when human interests and animal interests conflict. But humans have rights, including the right to own and use property. Animals are property. When the law attempts to balance human and non-human interests, the result is preordained.”
Yes I agree that legally our pets are treated as property with no rights. I do think that a dog defending its self or owner(s) should not be penalized for doing so; we as humans have the right to defend our pet(s), so why should the pets not have this right. But do not make the mistake that our pets are slaves who do our bidding. Just look at any normal human pet relationship and you will see that the typical owner is the one catering to the pet’s needs, not vice versa!
In conclusion I think that these two lawyers have stretched the meaning of the law as pertaining to pets and have come up with a distorted view due to their politically correct rhetoric that they subscribe to.
That is my opinion- Jumpin Jersey Mike
