Is it ethical to have pets? Wouldn't a dog or cat be happier in the wild, where it could procreate on its own, run freely, interact with its own kind etc.? As a pet, these animals do experience joy, but most are spayed or neutered, are bored or generally trapped inside while people are at work, have their nails clipped when they wouldn't like it (or declawed altogether), etc. I think the animals would have more happiness living in the wild. I know the animals would live shorter lives on average, but I am not convinced that a longer life necessitates a better life.

Comments

You are right that a longer life is not necessarily a happier life, but there are other things that go with longer life that are probably relevant to your question. I am not sure what the exact statistics are, but I see to recall that feral cats (felis domesticus) have an average life span of something like two years. The question is, what is the quality of those two years, relative to the very long average lives of cats that live as household pets? In addition to the factors that you mention, how should we think about the quality of life of an animal that has to be:

Constantly alert to the danger of predators (feral and domestic dogs, coyotes, etc., who will kill cats for amusement or food).
Depending on the environment, constant risk of accidents with automobiles.
Constantly in search of food, with starvation and malnutrition always serious risks--especially if the cat should suffer from some injury that prevents it from hunting or scavenging effectively.
Constantly plagued by fleas, worms, ticks, and other parasites, with no hope of relief.
Constant (often injurious, and sometimes deadly) fights with rivals for territory and or opportunities to breed, with the attendant risks of infections and subsequent disabilities.
The near-certainty of an early, violent, and painful death.

To be frank, the lives of feral cats look to me like exellent examples of Hobbes's old line about what human lives would be like in what he called a "state of nature": "nasty, poor, brutish, and short."

Moreover, I also seem to recall that, unlike dogs, which were bred for their qualities as pets, cats "domesticated themselves" because of the benefits to them that came through association with human beings.

At least in the case of cats (and I suspect that similar cases can be made for other companion animals, and even perhaps for some animals kept for human uses other than as pets) the quality of life issues do not at all support the idea that it would be better for the animal to live in the wild.

Read another response by Nicholas D. Smith

Read another response about Animals, Ethics