PETS

In contrast to wild animals living in zoological settings that have scientific value as representatives of particular species, or with domesticated work animals and those kept for their value as commodity producers, a pet is any domesticated animal or wild animal living in a domestic setting that is cared for, enjoyed, and valued for a unique set of characteristics that differentiates it from other members of the same species. Mitochondrial canine DNA evidence suggests that humans have kept dogs, the first animals to emerge as pets, for tens of thousands of years. Many pets are valued solely for their role as companions, treated by those who care for them with affection as though they were friends or family members. Some pets are also working animals: They hunt, herd, perform search and rescue operations, control traffic, protect homes from pests and strangers, or otherwise serve to extend human capacities, in versions of what Aristotle called living tools (Nicomachean Ethics VIII, 8). These animals, though, can be considered pets if and only if they are also valued for their companionship to humans.

Ethics of Pets

While numerous theories have been developed that focus on human beings and the environment as objects of ethical concern, no ethical theory deals specifically with how companion animals ought to be valued and viewed. The animal rights perspective popularized by philosopher Peter Singer, as well as theories of bioethics, may serve as starting-points for thinking about the ethics of keeping animals in zoos or consuming their meat; they are much less serviceable for thinking about human-pet relationships. Ethical relations toward pets as human companions can better be understood from within such moral perspectives as the Humean doctrine of moral sentiment, the obligation to do no harm, religious-based ethics, or the ethics of care. To the extent that scientific discoveries and technological innovations increase the mutual quality of life between pets and their human caregivers, they may be described as ethically positive; to the extent they lead to treating pets with decreased respect, kindness, and concern for the quality of their lives, as ethically negative.

Traditionally, ethical behavior toward pets has been synonymous with treating them humanely, that is, with care in providing them with healthful living conditions, compassion stemming from their status as dependent creatures, and respect for their dignity and well-being. Advances in science and technology have served this end in a number of ways. For instance, the growth of information technology has had a positive impact in extending and bettering the lives of pets. The use of radio collars and microchips with identifying information implanted under the skin now helps to reunite lost pets with their human companions; in the future, it is possible to imagine using devices with Global Positioning System (GPS) capabilities or nanoscale sensors to track the whereabouts of pets. Passports for pets, in effect in European Union countries from July 2004, include microchip identifiers that serve as a mechanism to allow cats, dogs, and ferrets with valid anti-rabies vaccination certificates to travel with their human companions without raising concerns about risks to public health.

The growth of the Internet has also led to improved living conditions for pets. Internet sites such as petfinders.com help facilitate the placement of abused and homeless pets, while other animal welfare organizations use the Internet to increase attention to the plight of former working animals (such as race horses and greyhounds) whose adoption as pets could prevent them from being destroyed, and of specific breeds of pets in need of a rescuing hand. By publicizing the needs of pets as well as opportunities for their adoption, the resources of the Internet have contributed to bettering the treatment of animals in shelters by leaving fewer unwanted pets to be euthanized, as well as to increasing global awareness of animal welfare and environmental ethics issues related to pets. These issues include international trade in exotic birds and other species, as well as the ongoing trade in and consumption of dog meat in some Asian countries despite government regulations making such practices illegal.

Raising Ethical Standards through Science and Technology

At the same time, advances in science and technology have been instrumental in encouraging a higher ethical standard for the treatment of pets than the minimal ethical standard of humane treatment or regard for animal safety and welfare. Because of the value that pets have in the eyes of their human companions, scientific or technological developments that help to extend the lives of individual pets or make these lives better are generally perceived as having a positive ethical dimension. Research in veterinary medicine and the application of human-related medical research to the veterinary sphere have led to the development of many measures to improve pet health and well being. These measures encompass a wide spectrum, including new types of immunizations, radiation treatments for pets with thyroid conditions, cataract operations to restore the sight of blind pets, MRI imaging technology and laser surgery for pets, and medications to prevent heartworm and other common but life-threatening parasites. Another development related to these innovations can be seen in the availability of therapeutic pet foods designed for animals with special health needs.

Such developments are not, however, always seen as morally benign. For example, the expense involved with obtaining many innovative health-related measures for pets has raised the question of whether it is moral to take such costly measures to extend the life of a single pet rather than applying the same resources to reduce human need and suffering.

Just as the birth of the cloned sheep Dolly in 1997 generated interest in cloning other kinds of livestock, it also sparked research into how cloning techniques might be applied for the purposes of cloning cats and dogs. In 2002 the first cloned kitten, aptly named "cc," was born at Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University to an adult cat acting as a surrogate mother implanted with cloned embryos formed by fusing denucleated feline egg cells with DNA from the nuclei of cumulus cells belonging to the original cat. Some researchers involved in this project have also been engaged in a similar but thus far (in 2004) unsuccessful endeavor, named the Missyplicity project, intended to clone Missy, a mixed-breed dog.

These efforts, and the potential for such cloning technologies to be transferred to commercial ventures, have prompted considerable moral controversy. Those who argue against cloning pets on ethical grounds have claimed that it is immoral to clone pets when there are so many homeless pets in shelters available for adoption, that the desire to clone a pet is based on the misguided idea that cloning could give it immortality, and that a cloned pet could be seen as less valuable than the original pet. At the same time, those who claim there is nothing morally wrong with pet cloning research stress that it could equally lead to more loving relationships between humans and their pets, as well as have important collateral benefits, such as the creation of better seeing-eye and search-and-rescue dogs. For those who see animals as technological devices, cloning, once perfected, could be perceived as merely a more effective production method.

Other attempts to apply new reproductive technologies to pets, such as genetic engineering, also give rise to ethical concerns. The development of zebra fish engineered with a sea coral gene so that they appear fluorescent under ultraviolet light raises the issue of whether, given that such fish are primarily appealing for their entertainment and novelty, it is consistent with respect for pets to commercially breed and market them. Additionally such fish might have potentially negative impacts on ecosystems should they (as have genetically engineered salmon) find their way into natural waterways.

Ethical issues further surround some conventional practices of breeding pets for certain characteristics such as small nostrils or prominent eyes that make them attractive representatives of particular breeds of animals at the expense of their health and welfare. The European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, first open for signature in 1987 and subsequently signed and ratified by a number of members of the Council of Europe, restricts the breeding of pets in such a way that would pass along defects, such as extremely small size, hairlessness, and other hereditary characteristics, that put them at risk for physical and mental diseases. A potentially suggestive avenue for the development of transgenic animals is one that could lead to pets whose blend of traditional aesthetic appeal with mitigated risk for disease might serve to allay ethical concerns regarding their existence.

While scientific and technological innovations have by and large been instrumental in enhancing the coexistence of humans and their pets they do not always lead to mutual flourishing, particularly in advanced industrialized countries. As in these settings the role of pets as companions to humans has grown, so has human interest in having pets whose welfare is otherwise not in question conform to human expectations and living patterns at the expense of their animal "otherness." In some locations, protective public policies have been introduced to prevent pets from being declawed, devoiced, or otherwise medically altered to accommodate the largely urban lifestyles of their owners. This interest can also lead humans to respond emotionally to their companion animals in ways that overemphasize their role as companions. For example, dogs historically bred to be involved in physical work alongside humans can suffer when, in a society dominated by developments in science and technology, their need to work goes unrecognized and unrewarded. In advanced technological society, insuring that human-pet relationships are to the mutual benefit of both partners can be seen as an ongoing ethical challenge.

Technology itself, in the form of robotic dogs and cats, or "cyberpets" such as the tamagotchi handheld video games that simulate feeding, training, playing, and other aspects of pet ownership, may serve as a means for meeting this challenge and for meeting at least some of the human needs now met by animal pets. If so, these technological pets might be a positive development. Many animal pets are mistreated by their owners, and this would not be a problem with mechanical pets under the assumption, which is probably safe at least for the near future, that they are not sentient. Furthermore, mechanical pets would presumably not breed, hence eliminating some of the vast number of killings of unwanted dogs, cats, and other companion animals.

DIANE P. MICHELFELDER WILLIAM H. WILCOX

SEE ALSO Agricultural Ethics;Animal Rights;Animal Welfare.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beck, Alan M., and Aaron Katcher. (1996). Between Pets and People: The Importance of Animal Companionship. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. The authors' research concentrates on the significant role pets can play as therapeutic agents in bettering human physical and mental health.

Haraway, Donna. (2003). The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness. Chicago: Prickley Paradigm Press. Haraway looks at companion species who, much like the cyborgs in her earlier Cyborg Manifesto (1985) bring together technoscience and nature in novel ways, and suggest how people might better learn to live with significant otherness.

Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 5(3), 2002. This issue contains reflections, both pro and con, on the ethics of cloning pets. Contributiors include philosopher Hilary Bok ("Cloning Companion Animals is Wrong"), Mark Green ("New Dog, Old Tricks"), and Lou Hawthorne ("A Project to Clone Companion Animals"). Hawthorne serves as the lead scientist on the Missyplicity project.

Midgley, Mary. (1983). Animals and Why They Matter. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Rowan, Anthony, ed. (1988). Animals and People Shaping the World. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. Includes articles on "Pet-Keeping In Non-Western Societies" and "The Emergence Of Modern Pet-Keeping."

Serpell, James. (1986). In the Company of Animals: A Study of Human-Animal Relationships. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. In this work, Serpell, director of the Center for the Interaction of Animals and Society at the University of Pennsylvania, takes a comprehensive look at the relationships between humans and their pets.

Tuan, Yu-Fu. (1984). Dominance and Affection: The Making of Pets. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Varner, Gary. (1999). "Should You Clone Your Dog?: An Animal Rights Perspective on Somacloning." Animal Welfare 8: 407–420.