Linda Rodriguez McRobbie address in her article ‘Should We Stop Keeping Pets? Why More and More's Ethicists Say Yes’, right of animal’s self-determination. Dr. Hal Herzog, cited by McRobbie, claimed we give our pets the characteristics of a family but restrain them with our choices. McRobbie argues that keeping pets is unethical and people are taking away their freedom. Even though she also suggests how dog and cats are euthanized every year and leaving them alone is as good as letting them die. Instead of focusing on animal’s free will we should improve their life as we keep them as pet. It might give them a better life and keep them safe.
Although I agree with McRobbie up to a point, I cannot accept her over riding assumption that animals need their own will, for the following reasons. First, as we know, pets can’t tell whether they are happy or not, we only decide what we think is the best. Letting an animal go on the street, is the same as letting them die. Though I understand that it’s morally problematic to not giving your pets the choice when we think them as our family. Animals may be happy when they are outside without a collar on their neck and freely roaming on the street with their free will that doesn't mean it safe. A car might hit the animal and driver couldn’t care less about it or it might starve without food because nobody taking care of it. But a pet owner could provide the best shelter possible and it will be safe and comfortable. Also, all pet owners take their pets for walk in park or street every day. Second, a pet is cute and harmless when it has owner but what happened when you let it go by giving a free will. For example, a dog won’t bite or bark when its owner says to stop but it won’t happen when it’s outside without any guidance. You may ask it could happen other way around, think about when it will happen, we could arrest the owner for not teaching the dog, but you can’t arrest the dog or kill which is outside just because it bit you. Even if you do arrest the dog or kill it, what about others. McRobbie isn’t talking about one pet or two, she’s talking about them in whole. It’s not only about the animals which will bite you but others which needs food for surviving or without food it may die in your backyard. A rotten dead body could spread disease in your neighborhood. Like it or not it will first affect your child in the house. Lastly, animal’s self-determination the main point of McRobbie but it all comes to whether we should have pets or not. Even though McRobbie strongly argue against having pets but she has a gecko of her own. People have pets not all because of hobby, but they need pets as a family, for their kids to play with or for them to talk to someone. It’s not all so bad, as I said before we don’t what our pets thinks, assuming that they need freedom more than having a family, it’s nothing more than someone’s opinion.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
In the article, McRobbie argues on both side of the coin means she suggest how we shouldn’t have pet because they have their own will. On the other hand, she shows how people develop good relationship with animals over time and how so many dogs and cats euthanized very year. As I said before I agree with her up to some point like how people have good relationship with their pets and think them as family. I believe it’s because we still have humanity left inside us. Many people have pets for their safety because they are best in security. Even though all animals aren’t as smart human but they understand the basic of good and bad. When a stranger tries to break into your house, your pet will save you or alert that someone uninvited is here. Also, people who are blind they use dog as a helper, they are also pets but trained. But in one thing I agree with not having a pet. It’s with the treatment of pets. Whether it’s human or animal nobody likes mistreatment, it’s even worse for pets because they can’t express their sorrow. Some people think pets as a property or just an ‘animal’, they hit them as they think they wouldn’t feel anything. People might say only few people would do something like that or we could just investigate it and punish those owners who hit their pets. I agree that we could identify them and arrest them. But it’s not only physical attacks what about those people who adopt a pet and forget about taking care of them. Our pets do need food in daily basis and exercise or they will get sick and lazy. In my opinion, if that’s how people want to take care of their pets it’s better to stop keeping pets.
At the end of the article, Herzog, cited by McRobbie claimed that our relationship with pets will change and robots will replace them. Even though the idea is intriguing I don’t think that will happen anytime soon or not happen at all. People keep pets not because of fashion because we need them. They are very important part of our society. As McRobbie and I believe they are part of family even though they are animal because they make us happy, and believe it or not, they are the reason we are more active than before. When we take our pets outside for walk, we also get exercised. People might suggest you could also take your robot for a walk, but you forgot one thing we take our pets outside because they need it or they will get lazy and it might affect their health. It’s a necessity but you wouldn’t do it for your robot because they are made of metal and a non-living thing.
Whether you should keep your pets or not, it’s up to you, because you are the only one who understand your pet better than anyone. People who are against keeping pets they should think about how to improve animals’ life with their owner.
Stuck on your essay?
