Is Keeping Pets Moral?

Is it moral to keep pets? By dictionary definition, a pet is an animal kept for companionship or amusement. Whilst we hear a variety of horror stories in the media today about animals who have been vastly mistreated by their owners, is it not the case that these are largely unique cases? Therefore, it is clearly unfair to brand other, more loving pet owners with the same criticism.

I’m sure many of you have fond memories of a childhood pet, be it a hamster, dog, cat, goldfish, rabbit or budgerigar. Many animal rights activists claim that all animals should be returned to the wild, and that it is clearly unnatural for an animal to live in a humanised environment. But this is in itself, a considerably flawed argument. The domestication of the gray wolf, over 15,000 years ago, resulted in the birth of a new subspecies, incredibly diverse in characteristic and use. The dog. Dogs have been humankind’s companion since time immemorial, and the relationship has nearly always been symbiotic. Dogs have an inherent pack instinct, and bond with their owners, leading to their use as guard dogs and hunting dogs. In return, they receive, shelter, warmth and company in far greater company than could be found in the wild!

It is impossible to imply that the canine friend we have grown to love and cherish would be better off in his natural environment, as his natural environment is with humanity. The same can apply to koi carp, goldfish, guinea pigs, cats and innumerable other domesticated animals. They have evolved to share a symbiotic relationship with humankind: companionship in return for food and protection. Is this immoral? No. Indeed, early Christians believed that keeping a pet promoted spiritual wellbeing. Is this unnatural? No. It is simply the natural process of individual species developing a symbiotic bond that is mutually beneficial. In exchange for entertainment and companionship, humans offer the species a unique environment, in which protection, food and company are guaranteed.

However, let us examine the argument from another point of view. If we were in fact to suggest that the keeping of domesticated animals was immoral, and they should be returned to the wild, how would this be implemented? There are an impossible amount of difficulties to contend with. Many domesticated animals are not native to the environment, and so would suffer extensively due to an incorrect climate, or multiply so prolifically that in turn, they harm more natural species. We must then remember that adaptation to domestication has provided our animal friends with considerable disadvantages when compared with their feral counterparts. Many dogs have been bred to have long hair, short legs and a docile temperament. How would this compare to the lithe, cunning, powerful counterpart, the wolf? We would simply be releasing our beloved companions in to the wild, where they would certainly die. How can this ever be claimed to be moral? The risks are very clear: the death of a companion, or the death of the ecosystem it quickly invades. And the blame would certainly be with us.

In conclusion, It is entirely moral to keep pets, provided they are kept in conditions that are in no way wanting for improvement. The owner must be capable of providing for them, and must clearly intend to continuously provide them with the care and stimulation they require (particularly with more social animals). It is impractical and impossible to release domesticated animals into the wild, as the risks to both the animal and the ecosystem are too great, as only one can triumph over the other. It is very rare that a domesticated animal can comfortably survive in an ecosystem, without either being at massive disadvantage, or in turn causing extensive damage to the ecosystem it has invaded. Therefore, the only viable option, is to continue to keep the pets we love, as responsibly as possible.