argument essay about keeping pets

• Newsletters

Site search

• Israel-Hamas war
• 2024 election
• TikTok’s fate
• Supreme Court
• All explainers
• Future Perfect

Filed under:

The case against pet ownership

Why we should aim for a world with fewer but happier pets.

Share this story

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: The case against pet ownership

Some days, when the doomscrolling becomes too much, I switch up my social media consumption to something I call petscrolling. It’s the act of swiping through an endless feed of Instagram reels featuring resilient three-legged rescue dogs hiking in the woods, feisty yet charming shop cats, and the occasional potbellied pet pig splashing around in a kiddie pool.

The internet is awash in this feel-good content starring some of the 250 million animals — nearly one for every person — who populate American households. It all reinforces the inherent goodness of the ancient human-animal bond, and lets us believe that where there are pets — whom most owners consider to be family members — there is joy, love, play, and hope.

There’s plenty of all that in my household, thanks to my sweet and spunky rescued pit bull mix, Evvie, one of many animals I’ve lived with during my lifetime. In the middle of 2020, she was picked up as a stray puppy in Greenville, North Carolina, before being passed through several foster homes. My partner and I took her home the day we met her, but only after hours of deliberation over whether I felt I had the time and energy to give her the life she deserved. (Evvie was young and full of energy, and I had just started at Vox.)

Evvie instantly added so much to our lives, and for a while, I assumed our relationship was reciprocal and that she gets just as much from our bond as I do. But recently I’ve begun to wonder if she’s a lot more bored and frustrated than I previously thought. That led me to read the stirring 2016 book Run, Spot, Run: The Ethics of Keeping Pets by author and bioethicist Jessica Pierce.

Pierce wants to show people like me the shadows beneath the sunny narrative of pet ownership, things like physical abuse , animal hoarding , puppy mills , dog fighting , and bestiality .

But beyond such extremes, Pierce’s work aims to direct our gaze to where more subtle, but far more common, forms of everyday neglect and cruelty lie. To Pierce, even well-meaning pet owners may have a lot to answer for: punitive training, prolonged captivity and extreme confinement, mutilations (declawing, ear and tail docking), outdoor tethering, lack of autonomy, verbal abuse, monotonous and unhealthy diets, lack of grooming, and inadequate veterinary care. (In 2016, about one-fifth of dog owners and half of cat owners didn’t bring their animal in for routine or preventive care, which is highly recommended .)

Add to the bill lack of exercise and socialization, boredom, and even abandonment. (Almost one-fifth of pet owners surveyed late last year said they were considering giving up their pets due to cost amid high inflation, which is generally not an option for other “family members.”)

All this is possible because, unlike children, pets aren’t really family members — they’re property without legal rights and few laws to protect them. And because abuse and neglect primarily occur in the privacy of the home, there’s little accountability for it. Even the most responsible pet owners, which I’d count myself among, are bound to fail to meet the needs of their animals due to other responsibilities and the inherent challenges of keeping a dog or cat in a world made for humans.

We may see ourselves as the best of animal lovers, but we very well could be inflicting suffering on our pets every day.

Pet-keeping “is like a sacred cow in a way,” Pierce told me. “Everybody assumes that pets are well off, and in fact, pampered … All they have to do is lay around in a bed and get fed treats every now and then and catch a Frisbee if they feel like it — like, who wouldn’t want that life?

“Underneath that is the reality that doing nothing but laying on a bed and having treats fed to you is profoundly frustrating and boring and is not a meaningful life for an animal.”

Animals in a human world

Since humans domesticated dogs (over 20,000 years ago ) and cats (over 10,000 years ago ), who some say are merely “ semi-domesticated ,” their roles have evolved largely from one type of work — hunting and guarding — to another: companionship. And counterintuitively, says Pierce, being a constant companion is a tougher job.

“Dogs are still working dogs; they’re just doing a different kind of work,” she said. “I think it’s actually much more dangerous and difficult work than any other kind of work we’ve ever asked them to do.”

We demand companionship with as little friction as possible, expecting our pets (especially dogs) to be docile and agreeable, and to adapt quickly to the human world, with its countless rules and norms that mean nothing to them. And then when they inevitably fail to do so at first, we deem their natural habits misbehavior in need of correction, or abandonment.

It’s telling that the world’s most popular dog trainer, Cesar Millan, partly relies on dominance and control to bring his subjects to heel. (Millan popularized the “dominance theory” approach to dog training, which has been debunked by scientists and criticized by the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior. A meta-analysis found that punitive training can increase dogs’ fear, anxiety, and stress.)

To serve the guard-to-companion evolution, a $136 billion pet industry has sprung up in recent decades to breed, transport, and sell tens of millions of animals a year — often in terrible conditions — and provide all the accoutrements of the modern pet, from food to toys to veterinary care to perfume for dogs . And just as Millan and his legion of followers bend some dogs’ behavior to their will, breeders have done the same for dogs’ genetics to make some breeds particularly agile , small, or cute — in other words, more attractive to humans. America’s current most popular breed, the French bulldog — and other flat-faced dogs, like pugs, boxers, and Shih Tzus — suffer from a variety of health issues because of how they were bred, leading journalist and Vox contributor Tove Danovich to call the Frenchie “a breed that’s been broken to accommodate us.”

And while approximately 30 to 40 percent of cats and dogs are acquired from shelters, not all of those adoptions work out — 7 to 20 percent are eventually returned, often due to complaints over the animals’ behavior. (Incompatibility with other pets, allergies, and cost are other top reasons).

Then there’s the estimated 97 million rabbits, birds, hamsters, gerbils, mice, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and other small animals kept as pets — mostly wild, social animals who spend their lives largely confined and isolated in cages and tanks. Their owners may love them, but their cramped and unnatural living arrangements are not so different from the pigs and chickens we raise for food.

A number of animal welfare scholars, like Pierce, are challenging the rosy picture that the pet industry — and pet owners, myself included — have painted around the domestic human-animal bond, and sometimes pose a radical question: should we end pet ownership? I’m increasingly inclined to think the answer could be yes — or that at the very least, there should be far fewer pets, and those owners should be prepared to put in the time and effort to provide them with far better lives.

The secret, boring life of pets

Before the cat dads and dog moms come for me, know this: I am one of you.

I’m an “animal person,” having spent half my life advocating for, and now reporting on, their welfare. I’ll always share a house with a rescued dog or cat. But Evvie’s needs, and my constant inability to meet them, have led me to question the whole endeavor of pet keeping.

As much as my partner and I lavish her with treats, walks, tug-of-war, playtime with other dogs , enrichment games, and less than legal off-leash romps in the woods outside our home in Silver Spring, Maryland, she spends much of her days with nothing to do but look out the window. We both work from home, which means there’s a fair amount of commotion and engagement to keep her stimulated. But despite that, Evvie is inevitably left to herself for much of the day — and she seems quite bored, with her extended periods of sleep followed by barking at me for attention (which she stops as soon as we play or go on a walk). And Evvie is comparatively lucky: in 2011, the average pet owner spent just about 40 minutes a day with their supposed family member.

Scientists have set up cameras to see what dogs do when home alone all day, and it turns out there’s a lot of yawning, barking, howling, whining, and sleeping — signs of anxiety and frustration. Charlotte Burn, a biologist and associate professor at the Royal Veterinary College in London, thinks our pets could also become bored when left alone for hours at a time.

“For most of us, [boredom is] a transient thing, and we can do something about it,” Burn told me. “But when you cannot do anything about it, it’s incredibly distressing. … Sometimes it’s thought of as a kind of luxury problem for animals, but actually, it may not be so luxurious if [an animal] can’t do anything about it, and it might be actually a massive welfare issue.”

Burn says there are two main animal responses to boredom. The first is drowsiness, brought on by an animal not having enough to do to stay awake, which looks to humans like staring into space, yawning, or sighing, even if the animal isn’t tired. The second is restlessness, even engaging in behaviors to help them stay awake. “They’ll try and escape their situation,” she says. “They’ll take risks, they’ll explore things even if they don’t like them, just basically to try and almost wake themselves up and make something happen.”

When we think about our pets, we naturally think about the brief time we spend with them — not their quiet, dull hours while we’re occupied with work, child care, friends, or errands while they’re cooped up. They might be excited when we come home not necessarily because they’re so delighted to see us, but because there’s finally an end to the silence that fills so much of their day.

“I think dogs are very adaptable, and become accustomed, often, to their lack of choices and autonomy,” said Alexandra Horowitz, a leading expert on dog behavior and head of the Horowitz Dog Cognition Lab at Barnard College, over email. “But I think that it’s not a good situation for them.”

Just how uneven the relationship is between pets and their human owners was demonstrated during the pandemic when, lonely and stuck at home, one in five households adopted a new pet. As new pet owners returned to work, however, their newly lonely pets struggled with the sudden change, showing high rates of chewing, digging, barking, escaping, pacing, hiding, and indoor urination and defecation.

Our pets might not be so bored if they just had some autonomy, but having a pet means regularly denying it. If Evvie’s hungry, she can’t grab a snack from the fridge. If she wants to play with another dog, I have to schedule it, or take her to the dog park (which for some dogs can be a blast and for others, overwhelming or dangerous , with some dogs dominating others, leading to stress and injuries). If she wants to explore the great outdoors, she has to wait until I have the time to take her for a walk — and even then, she’s tethered to a pesky leash, which I gently pull whenever she does something so harmless as stray too far into a neighbor’s yard to smell something that interests her or race ahead to greet a nearby dog or human.

As good as Evvie has it compared to most pets, she’s still a dog living in a world built for humans, and that means a life of constantly thwarted desires. The ability to meet her basic needs is entirely dependent upon someone else. Pets as we own them live in our worlds, not theirs.

What about cats? Cat behaviorists say they too can get bored . Few issues in the pet community spark as much debate as to whether cats should stay indoors or be given the freedom to come and go as they please in order to meet their needs for exercise, mental stimulation, and hunting, especially when that hunting results in the mass death of wildlife. (A 2013 paper estimates that cats in the US kill 1.3 to 4 billion birds and 6.3 to 22.3 billion small mammals annually, while wind turbines are estimated to kill a few hundred thousand birds to north of a million , each year).

The estimate has been contested , but even if it’s grossly off-base, it’s still a whole lot of death that’s a direct result of humanity’s semi-domestication and breeding of a once-wild animal. It’s also another example of a complicated ethical issue in which the welfare of pets is in conflict with the welfare of other animals (like killing animals for meat to feed pets).

So if we’re keeping more pets than ever, but many of the dogs are unhealthy and bored, the cats are either bored or cute little wildlife hunters, and the pet fish and birds are cruelly confined, what do we do about it? Some leading animal welfare experts say we ought to shrink the pet population and shift pet ownership from a casual hobby to a serious responsibility.

A world without pets — or one with happier pets?

Starting in 1979, Bob Barker of The Price is Right signed off each episode with a public service announcement: “This is Bob Barker reminding you to help control the pet population — have your pets spayed or neutered.”

1979 was a different time for cats and dogs in America; by one estimate, 7.6 to 10 million of them were euthanized annually around that time. While the national pet population has grown considerably in the years since, the number of shelter cats and dogs euthanized — while still depressingly high — has fallen to an estimated 920,000 per year. There are a lot fewer strays, too. For example, in the mid-1980s New Jersey had 160,000 cats and dogs roaming the streets, which fell to 80,000 in 2014.

The dramatic reduction came about as a result of increased pet sterilization at veterinary clinics, a rise in shelters and animal welfare organizations, and PSA campaigns like Barker’s and others from animal welfare groups — such as “Adopt, don’t shop” — all contributing to a cultural shift in how we get, and treat, our pets. But while 30 to 40 percent of cats and dogs are acquired from animal shelters, many of them — especially dogs — are still the product of breeding: whether at large-scale puppy mills , in which dogs are raised and sold more like livestock than family members, or from more informal, small-scale home operations.

But what if every prospective dog and cat owner were to actually follow the “adopt, don’t shop” motto and Barker’s plea to spay or neuter their pet? It would be a Children of Men situation for domesticated pets. The pet population would rapidly shrink before virtually disappearing altogether, ushering in a world unimaginable — perhaps not even worth inhabiting — for the most diehard cat and dog lovers.

Would that be so bad? For pet-loving humans, definitely. My relationship with Evvie is deeply enriching (for me, at least). I’m excited to see her each morning, to watch her run full-speed through the forest, roughhouse with other dogs, and wag uncontrollably each time I walk through the front door. Life without dogs would be far duller.

But keeping pets shouldn’t only be about me or you — it’s a relationship, and one in which humans arguably take much more than they give. And by continuing pet keeping as it’s done now — by breeding millions of new puppies, kittens, fish, and other animals each year — we’re making the decision that all the overt abuse and lower-grade cruelty and neglect is more than made up for by the joy wrought by the human-animal bond. I’m no longer so sure it is.

Gary Francione and Anna Charlton, a firebrand animal rights couple who teach law at Rutgers University, don’t think it is and have advocated for the abolition of pet ownership.

“Domesticated animals are completely dependent on humans, who control every aspect of their lives,” they wrote in a provocative essay for Aeon in 2016. “Unlike human children, who will one day become autonomous, non-humans never will. That is the entire point of domestication — we want domesticated animals to depend on us. They remain perpetually in a netherworld of vulnerability, dependent on us for everything that is of relevance to them.”

Because pets are property under the law, they argue, welfare standards will always be too low. We need to care for the ones in existence, but stop breeding new ones.

“I love living with dogs, but even I think that owning dogs can easily be considered morally questionable and may change in the future,” said Horowitz, the dog cognition expert.

I relate to Horowitz’s doubts, and find Francione’s and Charlton’s arguments persuasive, though given the popularity of pets — and the ancient human-animal bond — abolishing pet ownership is a political and cultural nonstarter. What might be more realistic is to radically rethink how we acquire and treat them, and just what we owe them.

When I asked Marc Bekoff , an ethologist at the University of Colorado Boulder who’s co-authored books with Pierce (and Jane Goodall), about whether we should phase out pet ownership, he said it’s perhaps a few thousand years too late to ask that question.

“In the best of all possible worlds, we wouldn’t have evolved to where we are now with dogs, because so many of the problems with dogs come down to selective breeding by humans deciding which traits they find cute or appealing,” he said, pointing to flat-faced dogs like the French bulldog.

He’d like to see puppy and kitten mills phased out amid a major cultural shift wherein people would only get a dog or cat if they have the time, money, patience, and energy to give them a good life. The motto would be: fewer pets with better lives. “You’re dealing with a sentient being who has very specific and enduring needs, and if you can’t fulfill them,” you should think twice, he said.

Pierce, a parent herself, has written about the importance of families with children thinking twice about getting a pet. Kids can be excited about a new pet one month and move on to another interest the next month — or just fail to take good care of the animal in the unique ways the pet needs (because they’re a child!). Families with children can also be more prone to neglecting their pets because child care, understandably, comes first.

While a lot of people call their pets “fur babies,” we’d be wise to think of them more as actual dependents, because they are. For most of human history, childhood wasn’t really a thing — children existed, at least in part, in service of their parents as additional labor. That has, of course, changed drastically over the last few hundred years, and with it, attitudes and habits around how we treat children. As part of that shift, though, the expectations for parenting rose as well, so much so that those expectations have become a major reason why people are having fewer or no children . Perhaps the same should happen for pets in the future. While the average pet probably has a much better life today than they did just 50 years ago, there’s still much room for improvement, but the demands would be such that fewer people would be in a position to become pet owners.

What pet owners should know

If you do decide to get a cat or dog, it’s imperative to adopt so as to prevent one more euthanasia among the millions of animals languishing in shelters, living lives that are likely worse than what they might experience even with a generally neglectful owner. And experts say it’s critical to understand that a good life is subjective — every individual animal is different — but it goes far beyond the basic requirements of sufficient food and water, protection from injury, and a walk here and there.

When surveyed , people are motivated to acquire a pet to fulfill their own emotional or practical needs: companionship, love, and affection, someone to greet them, property protection, or help while hunting. But taking a more animal-centered approach to keeping pets — focusing as well on what the human can give in the relationship — would go a long way to improving their quality of life.

For example, it doesn’t just mean taking the dog on a walk but letting them direct the route and giving them as much time as they’d like to smell , which is how they make sense of the world around them. For Bekoff, it also means ensuring they’re not left alone all day while their human is at work.

“Some people I know just leave their house at seven in the morning, they go to work, they go work out, or they go out for dinner, so the average dog is just going to be alone all day,” he said. “And then they get home and they’re tired, and they don’t walk them and they give them crappy food. Those people should not have a dog.”

While most veterinarians oppose letting cats free to roam outdoors, largely to prevent more cats from becoming roadkill, only six out of 10 are kept entirely indoors. Whichever side of the indoor-outdoor debate you choose, there are ways to give cats more of what they need. If your cat does have outdoor access, try giving them a colorful collar , which catches birds’ attention, gives them time to fly away, and can drastically reduce the avian body count. You can also try taking your cat for a walk on a leash (even if your neighbors might give you a double take).

“If you decide to keep a cat indoors, then you really have to work hard to compensate for what you’ve taken from them,” Pierce said. “[Your house] should look like a house where a cat lives, with perches and highways that they can walk across high up above the floor.” She recommends the book — this is the real title and author name — Total Cat Mojo: The Ultimate Guide to Life with Your Cat by Jackson Galaxy , whose YouTube channel includes videos on how to cat-ify one’s home.

Pets could benefit from more diverse diets , and there are also plenty of “enrichment” toys for cats and dogs. More importantly, enrichment games can be played with dogs to put their innate scavenging and sniffing skills to work. Good starting points for more animal-centered pet keeping include applying concepts like positive reinforcement training and cooperative care , and studying material from experts like Pierce, Horowitz, Galaxy, Bekoff, and anthrozoologist and cat expert John Bradshaw.

It’s harder for me to conceive of how one could ethically keep smaller animals, like birds , reptiles , rodents , fish , and amphibians . Unlike cats and dogs, these are naturally wild, undomesticated animals who are social and meant to fly, swim, or move great distances in a single day. As pets, they suffer in isolation and intensive confinement. It might be time we stop breeding them (or taking them from the wild, as some are actually trafficked wildlife ). We should give as good a life as possible to the ones who remain, through larger and more enriching enclosures, and eventually phase out of keeping them as pets.

For the animals we do have in our homes, we need to bring an attitude of give and take to the relationship, and we’re going to have to give a lot more than we’re currently taking.

“You’re really still asking these dogs or cats or other animals to live in a human-dominated world,” Bekoff said. “Cutting them some slack and giving them more choice and control or agency over their lives is a win-win for everyone.”

When my partner and I adopted Evvie six months into the pandemic, like so many others , I figured that a brisk walk or two a day, occasional playtime with other dogs, and brief games of tug-of-war between work meetings was enough to give her a good life. I’ve come to realize that’s the bare minimum.

I think a world with far fewer pets is a better one, though I know Evvie won’t be my last, so long as there are animals in need of adoption from shelters. But rescuing a dog or cat is just the start. Those who are mildly interested in acquiring a pet need to think long and hard about the steep responsibility that lies ahead, and us self-described animal lovers ought to do much more to live up to our stated values.

Will you help keep Vox free for all?

At Vox, we believe that clarity is power, and that power shouldn’t only be available to those who can afford to pay. That’s why we keep our work free. Millions rely on Vox’s clear, high-quality journalism to understand the forces shaping today’s world. Support our mission and help keep Vox free for all by making a financial contribution to Vox today.

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

Next Up In Future Perfect

Sign up for the newsletter today, explained.

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

Thanks for signing up!

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.

Israel just raised the risk of a regional war

Will Israel let aid workers in Gaza do their jobs?

The astonishing radicalism of Florida’s new ban on abortion

Why March Madness is all about Caitlin Clark

Why a total solar eclipse is a life-changing event, according to 8 eclipse chasers

How did the cost of food delivery get so high?

Is Pet Ownership Ethical?

Animal Rights and Welfare Activists on Animal Domestication

• University of Southern California
• Animal Rights
• Endangered Species

Because of pet overpopulation, just about all animal welfare activists would probably agree that we should spay and neuter our cats and dogs. But there would be some disagreement if you were to ask whether we should breed cats and dogs if all the shelters were empty and there were good, loving homes available.

Animal industries such as the fur industry and factory farms try to discredit animal protection groups by claiming that activists want to take people’s pets away. While some animal rights activists do not believe in keeping pets, we can assure you that no one wants to take your dog away from you — as long as you're treating it well.

Arguments for Pet Ownership

Many people consider their pets to be members of the family and thus treat them with love and respect. Oftentimes, this feeling appears to be mutual, as dog and cat pets seek out their owners to play, pet or invite them into their laps. These animals provide unconditional love and devotion — to deny them and us this relationship seems unthinkable to some.

Also, keeping pets is a much more humane way for them to live as opposed to  factory farms , animal testing labs or circuses use and abuse the animals. However, thanks to regulations passed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture like the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 , even these animals are entitled to a basic quality of life as sentient beings. 

Still, even the Humane Society of the United States argues that we should keep our pets — according to one official statement "pets are creatures with whom we share a world, and we rejoice in their companionship; you don't have to anthropomorphize to recognize that the feelings are returned...let us be close and cherish each other always." 

The vast majority of animal activists advocate spaying and neutering. However, most will say that the reason is the millions of cats and dogs who are killed in shelters every year, as opposed to any basic opposition to the keeping of pets.

Arguments Against Pet Ownership

On the other side of the spectrum, some animal activists argue that we should not keep or breed pets regardless of whether we have an overpopulation problem — there are two basic arguments that support these claims.

One argument is that cats, dogs, and other pets suffer too much at our hands. Theoretically, we may be able to provide good homes for our pets, and many of us do. However, in the real world, animals suffer abandonment, cruelty, and neglect.

Another argument is that even on a theoretical level, the relationship is inherently flawed and we are unable to provide the full lives that these animals deserve. Because they are bred to be dependent on us, the basic relationship between humans and companion animals is flawed because of the difference in power. A sort of Stockholm syndrome, this relationship forces animals to love their owners in order to get affection and food, oftentimes neglecting their animal nature to do so.

The animals rights activist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) opposes keeping pets , partially for this reason. An official statement on their website states that animals' "lives are restricted to human homes where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink and even urinate when humans allow them to." It then goes on to list common "mistreatments" of these house pets including declawing cats, not cleaning litter boxes and scolding any creature to get off the furniture or hurry up on its walk.

A Happy Pet Is a Good Pet to Have

The opposition to keeping pets must be distinguished from a call to release domesticated animals. They are dependent on us for their survival and it would be cruel to turn them loose on the streets or in the wilderness.

The position must also be distinguished from any desire to take anyone’s dogs and cats away. We have a duty to take care of the animals who are already here, and the best place for them is with their loving and caring human guardians. This is why animal rights activists who oppose keeping pets might have rescued pets themselves.

Activists who oppose keeping pets believe that domestic animals should not be allowed to breed. The animals who are already here should live long, healthy lives, cared for with love and respect by their human guardians. As long as the pet is happy and lives a life of love without undue suffering, for most people, animal rights and welfare activists alike, pets are definitely fine to have!

• The Top 10 Animal Rights Issues
• Factory Farming Is More Destructive Than Ever
• Pets Are Good for Your Health, and We Have the Studies to Prove It
• What's the Difference Between a Zoo and a Sanctuary?
• Arguments for and Against Humane Meat
• The Argument for Animal Rights
• Why Filmmakers Gave Guinea Pigs Their Own Documentary
• What Are Animal Rights?
• Responses to Top Arguments Against Animal Rights
• Should Dogs Have Legal Rights?
• 6 Animals with Pets of Their Own
• Why Animal Rights Activists Are Against the AKC
• Western Australia Bans Puppy Mills, Dog Sales in Pet Shops
• Animal Rights and the Ethics of Testing
• What's Wrong With Aquariums?
• 4,000 Beagles Rescued From Massive Virginia Breeding Facility

Pets: is it ethical to keep them?

Lecturer of Sociology, University of Kent

Disclosure statement

Corey Lee Wrenn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

View all partners

According to the UK veterinary charity The People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA), half of Britons own a pet . Many of these owners view the 11.1m cats, 8.9m dogs, and 1m rabbits sharing their homes as family members. But although we love them, care for them, celebrate their birthdays and mourn them when they pass, is it ethical to keep pets in the first place? Some animal rights activists and ethicists, myself included, would argue that it is not.

The institution of pet-keeping is fundamentally unjust as it involves the manipulation of animals’ bodies, behaviours and emotional lives. For centuries, companion animal’s bodies (particularly dogs, horses and rabbits) have been shaped to suit human fashions and fancies. And this often causes these animals considerable physical harm .

Particular breeds, for instance, are highly susceptible to painful and frequently fatal genetic defects. Highly prized physical features – such as small and large stature or pushed-in noses – can cause discomfort and difficulty in breathing, birthing and other normal functions.

Even those animals who are not purpose-bred often face bodily manipulations which impede their comfort and safety. This can include confining clothing, painful leashes that pull at the throat, docked tails and ears, and declawing , which involves the severing of the first digit of each toe in cats. Pets are also often constrained in their daily movements, sometimes crated or caged, and regularly kept indoors – always at the whim of their human owners.

Pets also symbolically reinforce the notion that vulnerable groups can be owned and fully controlled for the pleasure and convenience of more privileged and powerful groups. And this has implications for vulnerable human groups. For instance, sexism is partially maintained by treating women linguistically as pets – “kitten”, “bunny” – and physically by confining them to the home to please and serve the family patriarch.

Social workers further recognise the powerful link between pet abuse and the abuse of children and women in domestic settings. The idea that it is acceptable to manipulate the bodies and minds of a vulnerable group to suit the interests of more privileged groups is consistent with the cultural logic of oppression.

Cannot consent

Through this forced dependency and domestication, the lives of companion animals are almost completely controlled by humans. They can be terminated at any time for the most trivial of reasons – including behavioural “problems”, for belonging to a stereotyped breed, or the owner’s inability (or unwillingness) to pay for veterinary treatment.

In the mid 20th century, sociologist Erving Goffman introduced the concept of a “ total institution ”. This sees inhabitants cut off from wider society under a single authority in an enclosed social space. Natural barriers between social spheres are artificially eliminated and an intense socialisation process takes place to ensure that inmates conform.

Sociologists typically study prisons, asylums and other physical spaces as examples. But I believe pet-keeping constitutes a sort of dispersed “total institution”. This is because nonhuman animals are unnaturally forced under human authority, restrained, and re-socialised. True consent is not possible under such conditions. Animals are groomed to participate and those who are unable to follow the rules of human social life are likely to be punished – sometimes fatally.

This is not in any way to suggest that dogs, cats and other species cannot express love and happiness as “pets”. But it is important to recognise that their complacency within the institution of pet-keeping is entirely manufactured (sometimes quite cruelly) by humans through behaviour “corrections” and the manipulative process of domestication itself.

A world without pets?

Some companion animal advocates, such as Nathan Winograd, the director of the US based No Kill Advocacy Center , argue that to stop keeping pets altogether would be a violation of nonhuman animals’ right to exist . Winograd believes the widespread killing of healthy companion animals can be curbed through a restructuring of the sheltering industry . He rejects the need to end pet-keeping given the abundance of humanity’s capacity for compassion and adoption.

Winograd’s pro-pet position reflects the No Kill movement’s strong disapproval of some animal rights organisations, which frequently support “euthanasia” policies to curb pet populations. But if a no kill society were to be achieved, many of the ethical violations – bodily manipulation, non-consensual confinement, enforced dependency, and vulnerability to human abuse – would remain. Even if, as Winograd supposes, an increase in legal protections could be obtained to improve domestic animal’s standards of living.

Ultimately, companion animals, by their very position in the social order, are not and cannot be equals. The institution of pet-keeping maintains a social hierarchy which privileges humans and positions all others as objects of lower importance – whose right to existence depends wholly on their potential to benefit humans. That said, the population of dogs, cats, rabbits and other domesticated “pet” animals currently rivals that of humans such that they are likely to remain a consistent feature of human social life.

And while it may not be ethical to pursue the future breeding of nonhuman animals for comfort, humans do have a duty to serve, protect and care for them. Recognising the inherent inequality in human and nonhuman relations will be vital in making the best of an imperfect situation.

• Animal rights
• Animal training

Events Officer

Lecturer (Hindi-Urdu)

Director, Defence and Security

Opportunities with the new CIEHF

School of Social Sciences – Public Policy and International Relations opportunities

Search form

Do we really have the right to own our fellow creatures? Are there some animals that should never be kept as pets? Is it okay to declaw a cat, clip a bird’s wings, or dock a dog's tail? These are some of the questions we're asking on this week's show. 

Ideally, keeping a companion animal is a good thing that enriches both of your lives. I can’t find fault with someone who adopts an animal from a shelter, and provides care throughout the animal’s life. But many people who keep pets fall short of this ideal.

In worst-case scenarios, people neglect or abuse nonhuman animals in a variety of ways: hoarding, dogfighting and cockfighting rings, domestic violence that targets animals as well as humans. This cruelty toward animals is obviously wrong. But there are a range of less extreme cases that also raise ethical problems.

For example: is it really ethical to keep wild animals as pets? Cats and dogs have co-evolved with humans, but hermit crabs, hedgehogs, snakes, and sugar gliders are adapted to life in the wild, not life in captivity. Someone who adopts a wild animal might have difficulty caring for its psychological needs, not just its physical ones. And the exotic pet trade both removes wild animals from their natural environment, and introduces them to new ecosystems, where they may be highly disruptive (although not all the changes are bad; I believe that San Francisco’s feral parrots make the city a beautiful and interesting place).

What about the ethics of adopting a puppy from a breeder? This seems like a fraught choice, when there are so many shelter dogs in need of families. It’s important to avoid breeders who mistreat their animals. Even if a breeder treats individual dogs well, there are collective problems with overbreeding : Pugs and Bulldogs inherit pushed-in faces that interfere with their ability to breathe; German Shepherds may suffer from hip problems due to the characteristic shape of their hind legs; and Cavalier King Charles Spaniels are prone to a condition called canine syringomyelia, which causes severe neck and shoulder pain, as well as nerve damage.

Even if you adopt a domestic animal from a shelter, there are ethical issues to consider. Providing survival, even with a baseline level of predictability and physical health, doesn’t seem like enough. Someone who gives their cat adequate food, water, shelter, and medical care isn’t being abusive, but if the cat is left alone most of time without human or animal companionship, is that really a good enough life?   

When is it okay to modify your pet’s body, given that they can’t consent? Hair clipping seems justified (it’s not particularly painful or harmful), and so does spaying/neutering (we wouldn’t tolerate such treatment of a non-consenting human, but failure to spay/neuter pets results in significant animal suffering).  On the other hand, I don’t think it’s right to put a cat through a painful and risky declawing operation, even if that would simplify the life of their human companion. ( The American Association of Feline Practitioners agrees with me.) Docking a dog’s ears or tail for aesthetic reasons is even less justified; the human interest is trivial compared to the pain suffered by the animal.

Beyond these questions of individual responsibility, I have larger ethical questions about our treatment of pets in society. When I talk about my dog, I sometimes feel tempted to speak of myself as her owner (especially if someone else speaks of me that way, and I’m following their lead). It’s also common to speak of pets, particularly those of unknown sex or gender, as “it.” But this framing feels disrespectful; shouldn’t we think of ourselves as our pets’ caretakers or stewards, rather than their owners, and isn’t it better to speak of a companion as “they,” rather than “it?” I wouldn’t want to slip into thinking that my dog exists to serve my needs, when she’s a living being with needs of her own.

It’s also strange to me that we lavish a relatively large amount of attention and care on domestic pets, while also tolerating factory farming. What makes a pig or a cow less morally valuable than a dog or a cat?

I believe that responsible pet stewardship is possible and valuable, but the bar for responsibility should be set high. I’m excited that Josh and I will get to talk more about these questions with Gary Varner on this week’s episode. I hope you’ll tune in!

Related Shows

Nonhuman rights, animal rights, the moral lives of animals, animal minds, the morality of food.

• animal rights

Blog Archive

Comments (7).

Saturday, June 27, 2020 -- 2:51 PM

In my opinion it’s not ethical for human to keep pets.

Log in or register to post comments

Wednesday, July 1, 2020 -- 7:15 PM

Living out of doors for my formative years, my friends were all of the creatures in the woods and streams around me--domestic and wild. My attitude towards all of them was tempered by whether bonding was involved or not. With bonding comes responsibility, affection and dependency. I was even bonded for some years with a large white duck and a few birds, cats, a rabbit, and a dog. I want to leave the question, "What are the ethics of bonding and dependency?

Friday, July 3, 2020 -- 12:53 PM

We humans have created animals' dependency on us, and with that comes bonding for both. I keep 11 dogs, 2 horses, and 3 donkeys -- all unwanted and doomed until adopted. But that situation of their having no place in the world was created by us humans. Easy to say keeping another creature is unethical, but a stream of unethical behaviors may call for the resulting ethical behavior of taking responsibility for their condition by forming the bond and giving these awesome creatures the security and, hopefully, happiness of a forever home.

Thursday, July 9, 2020 -- 4:35 PM

Pragmatism does not beget ethics. I take your point but I think it misses the mark here. I'll take my lumps on this but most humans have no idea why they pay taxes much less own animals. It is the owning that is the issue not the need or net reduction in animal suffering.

I've tried to frame a response to this show but I'm at a loss. I need to think this out more. Pragmatic need is a worthy justification for pet ownership but not the "right" one ... perhaps.

When I look back on a lifetime of pet ownership... I have to say I have received more benefit from pet ownership than my pets received from me. I would have done better to spend that money protecting habitat and reducing human impacts on animal welfare I think... I don't know.

Thursday, July 9, 2020 -- 8:58 PM

I don't like myself when I think about the ethics here. I don't think I or any other person understands other creatures' will, most especially that of our fellow humans. We don't understand life or the forces that direct it. Pet ownership is anathema to me. Yet I have had a pet my entire life as long as I can recall.

One cat I had went feral in the woods of Northern Michigan. That, and the detail around that transition are one of the most profound in my life - and I'm not kidding. Attachment to pets and the loss entailed has moved me deeply (whatever that means.)

To own a pet is unethical and essential at the same time given the world as it is. LIving with others is the single hardest, most rewarding thing a person can do. There is no ethic there... only simultaneous experience that is more than likely misunderstood.

Wednesday, March 13, 2024 -- 8:30 AM

As an animal welfare advocate, the ethics of pet keeping extend beyond mere ownership. It's crucial to consider the well-being of animals in our care, ensuring they're provided with affordable protection dogs appropriate housing, nutrition, and medical care. Responsible pet ownership entails recognizing and respecting animals as sentient beings with their own needs and rights.

Wednesday, March 20, 2024 -- 10:52 AM

Ethical considerations in pet keeping encompass responsible ownership, ensuring the well-being and welfare of animals. This cable and internet bundles involves providing adequate care, attention, and a suitable environment for their physical and mental health. Educating oneself on proper pet care practices and respecting the needs and rights of animals are fundamental aspects of ethical pet keeping.

• Create new account
• Request new password

Photo by Brian Rueb Photography/Getty

The case against pets

A morally just world would have no pets, no aquaria, no zoos. no fields of sheep, no barns of cows. that’s true animal rights.

by Gary L Francione & Anna E Charlton   + BIO

We live with six rescued dogs. With the exception of one, who was born in a rescue for pregnant dogs, they all came from very sad situations, including circumstances of severe abuse. These dogs are non-human refugees with whom we share our home. Although we love them very much, we strongly believe that they should not have existed in the first place.

We oppose domestication and pet ownership because these violate the fundamental rights of animals.

The term ‘animal rights’ has become largely meaningless. Anyone who thinks that we should give battery hens a small increase in cage space, or that veal calves should be housed in social units rather than in isolation before they are dragged off and slaughtered, is articulating what is generally regarded as an ‘animal rights’ position. This is attributable in large part to Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation (1975), who is widely considered the ‘father of the animal rights movement’.

The problem with this attribution of paternity is that Singer is a utilitarian who rejects moral rights altogether, and supports any measure that he thinks will reduce suffering. In other words, the ‘father of the animal rights movement’ rejects animal rights altogether and has given his blessing to cage-free eggs, crate-free pork, and just about every ‘happy exploitation’ measure promoted by almost every large animal welfare charity. Singer does not promote animal rights ; he promotes animal welfare . He does not reject the use of animals by humans per se . He focuses only on their suffering. In an interview with The Vegan magazine in 2006, he said, for example, that he could ‘imagine a world in which people mostly eat plant foods, but occasionally treat themselves to the luxury of free-range eggs, or possibly even meat from animals who live good lives under conditions natural for their species, and are then humanely killed on the farm’.

We use the term ‘animal rights’ in a different way, similar to the way that ‘human rights’ is used when the fundamental interests of our own species are concerned. For example, if we say that a human has a right to her life, we mean that her fundamental interest in continuing to live will be protected even if using her as a non-consenting organ donor would result in saving the lives of 10 other humans. A right is a way of protecting an interest; it protects interests irrespective of consequences. The protection is not absolute; it may be forfeited under certain circumstances. But the protection cannot be abrogated for consequential reasons alone.

Non-human animals have a moral right not to be used exclusively as human resources, irrespective of whether the treatment is ‘humane’, and even if humans would enjoy desirable consequences if they treated non-humans exclusively as replaceable resources.

W hen we talk about animal rights, we are talking primarily about one right: the right not to be property. The reason for this is that if animals matter morally – if animals are not just things – they cannot be property. If they are property, they can only be things. Think about this matter in the human context. We are all generally agreed that all humans, irrespective of their particular characteristics, have the fundamental, pre-legal right not to be treated as chattel property. We all reject human chattel slavery. That is not to say that it doesn’t still exist. It does. But no one defends it.

The reason we reject chattel slavery is because a human who is a chattel slave is no longer treated as a person, by which we mean that the slave is no longer a being who matters morally. A human slave is a thing that exists completely outside the moral community. All the interests that the human slave has can be valued by someone else – the owner – who might choose to value the slave as a member of the family, or could provide the slave with minimal sustenance but otherwise treat the slave horribly. The slave’s fundamental interests might be valued at zero.

There were many laws that purported to regulate race-based human slavery in the United States and Britain. These laws did not work because the only times regulatory laws are relevant is when there is a conflict between slave and slave owner. And, if the slave owner does not prevail substantially all of the time, then there is no longer an institution of slavery. There can be no meaningful challenge to the exercise of the owner’s property rights.

The same problem exists where non-humans are concerned. If animals are property, they can have no inherent or intrinsic value. They have only extrinsic or external value. They are things that we value. They have no rights; we have rights, as property owners, to value them . And we might choose to value them at zero.

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.

however ‘humanely’ we treat animals, they are still subjected to treatment that, were humans involved, would be torture

Moreover, because animals are chattel property, the standard of animal welfare will always be very low. It costs money to protect animal interests, which means that those interests will, for the most part, be protected only in those situations in which there is an economic benefit in doing so. It is difficult to find a welfare measure that does not make animal exploitation more efficient. Laws requiring the stunning of large animals before slaughter reduce carcass damage and worker injuries. Housing calves in smaller social units rather than in solitary crates reduces stress and resulting illness, which reduces veterinary costs.

To the extent that animal welfare measures increase production costs, the increase is usually very small (eg, going from the conventional battery cage to ‘enriched cages’ in the EU) and rarely affects overall demand for the product given elasticities of demand. In any event, however ‘humanely’ treated animals used for food are, they are still subjected to treatment that, were humans involved, would be torture. There is no such thing as ‘happy’ exploitation.

Although the right not to be property is a negative right and does not address any positive rights that non-humans might have, recognition of that one negative right would have the effect of requiring us, as a matter of moral obligation, to reject all institutionalised exploitation, which necessarily assumes that animals are just things that we can use and kill for our purposes.

W e want to take a short detour here and point out that, although what we are saying might sound radical, it’s really not. Indeed, our conventional wisdom about animals is such that we come to almost the same conclusion without any consideration of rights at all.

Conventional wisdom about animals is that it is morally acceptable for humans to use and kill them but that we should not impose unnecessary suffering and death on animals. However we might understand the concept of necessity in this context, it cannot be understood as allowing any suffering or death for frivolous purposes. We recognise this clearly in particular contexts. For example, many people still have a strong negative reaction to the American football player Michael Vick, who was found to be involved in a dog-fighting operation in 2007. Why do we still resent Vick almost a decade later? The answer is clear: we recognise that what Vick did was wrong because his only justification was that he derived pleasure or amusement from harming those dogs, and pleasure and amusement cannot suffice as justifications.

Many – perhaps most – people object to bullfighting, and even most Tories in the UK oppose fox hunting. Why? Because those bloodsports, by definition, involve no necessity or compulsion that would justify imposing suffering and death on non-human animals. No one proposed that Vick would be less culpable if he were a more ‘humane’ dog fighter. No one who opposes bloodsports proposes that they be made more humane because they involve unnecessary suffering. They oppose the activities altogether, and advocate their abolition, because these activities are immoral, however they are conducted.

The problem is that 99.999 per cent of our uses of non-human animals are morally indistinguishable from the activities to which the overwhelming number of us object.

The only use of animals that we make that is not transparently frivolous is the use of animals in research to find cures for serious illnesses

Our most numerically significant use of animals is for food. We kill more than 60 billion animals for food annually, and this does not count the even larger number – estimated conservatively to be about a trillion – of sea animals. We don’t need to eat animals for optimal health. Indeed, an increasing number of mainstream healthcare authorities, including the National Institutes of Health in the US, the American Heart Association, the British National Health Service, and the British Dietetic Association, have stated that a sensible vegan diet can be just as nutritious as a diet that includes animal foods. Some authorities have gone further to say that a vegan diet can be healthier than an omnivorous diet. In any event, it cannot be credibly claimed that we need animal products for health reasons. And animal agriculture is an ecological disaster.

We consume animal products because we enjoy the taste. In other words, we are no different from Vick, except that most of us pay others to inflict the harm rather than inflicting it ourselves. And our uses of animals for entertainment or sport are, by definition, also unnecessary. The only use of animals that we make that is not transparently frivolous is the use of animals in research to find cures for serious illnesses. We reject vivisection as morally unjustifiable even if it involves necessity (a claim we also believe is problematic as an empirical matter), but the morality of vivisection requires a more nuanced analysis than the use of animals for food, clothing, entertainment and other purposes. Just about all of our other uses of animals can easily be seen to be immoral given our conventional wisdom.

The bottom line: whether you adopt an animal-rights position and recognise that animals must have a basic, pre-legal right not to be property, or you stay with conventional wisdom, the result is the same: substantially all of our uses of animals must be abolished.

T o say that an animal has a right not to be used as property is simply to say that we have a moral obligation to not use animals as things, even if it would benefit us to do so. With respect to domesticated animals, that means that we stop bringing them into existence altogether. We have a moral obligation to care for those right-holders we have here presently. But we have an obligation not to bring any more into existence.

And this includes dogs, cats and other non-humans who serve as our ‘companions’.

We treat our six dogs as valued members of our family. The law will protect that decision because we may choose to value our property as we like. We could, however, choose instead to use them as guard dogs and have them live outside with virtually no affectionate contact from us. We could put them in a car right now and take them to a shelter where they will be killed if they are not adopted, or we could have them killed by a veterinarian. The law will protect those decisions as well. We are property owners. They are property. We own them.

The reality is that in the US, most dogs and cats do not end up dying of old age in loving homes. They have homes for a relatively short period of time before they are transferred to another owner, taken to a shelter, dumped or killed.

And it does not matter whether we characterise an owner as a ‘guardian’, as some advocates urge. Such a characterisation is meaningless. If you have the legal right to take your dog to a kill shelter, or to ‘humanely’ kill your dog yourself, it does not matter what you call yourself or your dog. Your dog is your property. Those of us who live with companion animals are owners as far as the law is concerned, and we have the legal right to treat our animals as we see fit as long as we provide for minimal food, water and shelter. Yes, there are limitations on the exercise of our ownership rights. But those limitations are consistent with according a very low value to the interests of our animal companions.

But, as you recoil in horror thinking of what life would be like without your beloved dog, cat or other non-human companion, whom you love and cherish as a member of your family, you are probably thinking: ‘But wait. What if we required everyone to treat their animals the way I treat mine?’

The problem with this reply is that, even if we could come up with a workable and enforceable scheme that required animal owners to provide a higher level of welfare to their animals, those animals would still be property. We would still be able to value their lives at zero and either kill them, or take them to a shelter where they would be killed if not adopted.

You might respond that you disagree with all that as well, and that we ought to prohibit people from killing animals except in situations in which we might be tempted to allow assisted suicide (terminal illness, unrelenting pain, etc) and that we should prohibit shelters from killing animals except when it is in the best interests of the animal.

domestication itself raises serious moral issues irrespective of how the non-humans involved are treated

What you’re suggesting starts coming close to abolishing the status of animals as chattel property and requiring that we treat them in a way that is similar to the way we treat human children. Would it be acceptable to continue to breed non-humans to be our companions then?

Our answer is still a firm ‘no’.

Putting aside that the development of general standards of what constitutes treating non-humans as ‘family members’ and resolution of all the related issues is close to impossible as a practical matter, this position neglects to recognise that domestication itself raises serious moral issues irrespective of how the non-humans involved are treated.

Domesticated animals are completely dependent on humans, who control every aspect of their lives. Unlike human children, who will one day become autonomous, non-humans never will. That is the entire point of domestication – we want domesticated animals to depend on us. They remain perpetually in a netherworld of vulnerability, dependent on us for everything that is of relevance to them. We have bred them to be compliant and servile, and to have characteristics that are pleasing to us, even though many of those characteristics are harmful to the animals involved. We might make them happy in one sense, but the relationship can never be ‘natural’ or ‘normal’. They do not belong in our world, irrespective of how well we treat them. This is more or less true of all domesticated non-humans. They are perpetually dependent on us. We control their lives forever. They truly are ‘animal slaves’. Some of us might be benevolent masters, but we really can’t be anything more than that.

There are some, such as Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka, who in their book Zoopolis (2011) say that humans are dependent on each other, and ask what’s wrong with animals being dependent on us? Human relationships might involve mutual dependence or interdependence, but such dependence either operates on the basis of choice, or it reflects social decisions to care for more vulnerable members of society who are bound together and protected by the complex aspects of a social contract. Besides, the nature of human dependence does not strip the dependant of core rights that can be vindicated if the dependence becomes harmful.

There are those who respond to our position by saying that dogs, cats and other ‘pet’ animals have a right to reproduce. Such a position would commit us to continue to reproduce without limit and indefinitely, as we could not limit any reproductive right to ‘pet’ animals. As for those who are concerned that the end of domestication would mean a loss of species diversity, domesticated animals are beings we have created through selective breeding and confinement.

Some critics have claimed that our position concerns only the negative right not to be used as property, and does not address what positive rights animals might have. This observation is correct, but all domestication would end if we recognised this one right – the right not to be property. We would be obliged to care for those domesticated animals who presently exist, but we would bring no more into existence.

If we all embraced the personhood of non-humans, we would still need to think about the rights of non-domesticated animals who live among us and in undeveloped areas. But if we cared enough not to eat, wear or otherwise use domesticated non-humans, we would undoubtedly be able to determine what those positive rights should be. The most important thing is that we recognise the negative right of animals not to be used as property. That would commit us to the abolition of all institutionalised exploitation that results in the commodification and control of them by humans.

We love our dogs, but recognise that, if the world were more just and fair, there would be no pets at all, no fields full of sheep, and no barns full of pigs, cows and egg-laying hens. There would be no aquaria and no zoos.

If animals matter morally, we must recalibrate all aspects of our relationship with them. The issue we must confront is not whether our exploitation of them is ‘humane’ – with all of the concomitant tinkering with the practices of animal-use industries – but rather whether we can justify using them at all.

Economic history

The southern gap

In the American South, an oligarchy of planters enriched itself through slavery. Pervasive underdevelopment is their legacy

Keri Leigh Merritt

Thinkers and theories

Our tools shape our selves

For Bernard Stiegler, a visionary philosopher of our digital age, technics is the defining feature of human experience

Bryan Norton

Family life

A patchwork family

After my marriage failed, I strove to create a new family – one made beautiful by the loving way it’s stitched together

The cell is not a factory

Scientific narratives project social hierarchies onto nature. That’s why we need better metaphors to describe cellular life

Charudatta Navare

Stories and literature

Terrifying vistas of reality

H P Lovecraft, the master of cosmic horror stories, was a philosopher who believed in the total insignificance of humanity

Sam Woodward

The dangers of AI farming

AI could lead to new ways for people to abuse animals for financial gain. That’s why we need strong ethical guidelines

Virginie Simoneau-Gilbert & Jonathan Birch

Why We Should Ban Pets

It’s time to retire the cages, aquariums, and leashes for good.

Photo Credit: Javier Brosch/Shutterstock

Adoption centres, breeders, and rescue facilities have experienced a surge in demand for companion animals during the COVID-19 pandemic. The dramatic rise in companion animals during the pandemic is no coincidence. Public health measures have forced the relocation of office workers to the comfort of their homes, making it convenient to raise a new pet. Pets have also helped us cope with the psychological impacts which accompany a pandemic. By interacting with our pets, we trigger the release of oxytocin , which is a chemical dubbed as the ‘love hormone.’ Oxytocin helps to improve social interaction, reduce stress and anxiety, and enhance overall human health.

This rise of interest in pets comes as no surprise for scientists who have long studied the positive effects that interactions with companion animals have on humans. However, the benefits that our pets get out of these interactions are less clear.

Of course, human interaction with other animals is not a new phenomenon. For thousands of years , humans have shared affable relations with animals akin to present-day pets. It is probable that somewhere along the way, animals were domesticated by humans because they made life easier; dogs assisted with hunting and herding, for example. Eventually, some domesticated species transitioned into a new class of animals that persisted for reasons other than typical utility. Such animals resembled what we now refer to as pets.

Beginning in the Middle Ages, when pet-keeping was common among aristocrats, and up until the witch trials in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when the middle class began keeping pets, pet owners faced backlash . According to some philosophers, human-animal relationships went against the natural order of life because animals lacked feelings and morality. Animals were only placed on the Earth to serve human beings, not to be their companions.

Historians cite the Victorian era (1837-1901) as the origin of the type of pet ownership we operate with today. By this point, the practice of pet-owning was a non-threatening link to the natural world. It also helped to reinforce the notion that humans dominate nature. When sentient beings like pets began being tagged as property and owned by humans, it gave humans the right of use, control, and dominion over them. 

The troubling tale of human domination tied up with pet-owning gets overshadowed by the belief that pet-ownership is beneficial for all parties involved. Some people think that the practice of domesticating animals would not have been possible had the wild wolves not viewed the food scraps from hunter-gatherer groups as a beneficial resource when their hunting was difficult.

In the present day, many pets receive more than just leftovers; they have warm fluffy beds, are drowned in love and affection, and some even enjoy daily – if often tethered – excursions outside. Yet, the presence of this seemingly mutually beneficial relationship is not enough to justify placing a muzzle on the ethical debate over pet-owning. If we really love our pets, we would not own them anymore.

The idea that domestic animals benefit from being owned by humans is a façade. Like other property owned by humans, pets get marketed as a commodity . They are mass-produced, advertised, put in storage, shipped, bought, traded, replaced, returned, and in some instances, thrown out. Apart from weak animal cruelty laws, it remains up to the property owner to decide how to value and treat their property – in other words, their pet.

Organizations like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) have fought hard to improve the welfare of domestic animals who routinely get commodified as objects. PETA believes it is our responsibility to take good care of domestic animals because they cannot survive on their own. But they strongly oppose animal mills and private breeders because animals in these environments are treated merely as “ breeding machines ” and denied proper companionship.

PETA encourages kind individuals to rescue one of the millions of animals on the streets or in neglectful environments. Humans can continue to own companion animals, granted that pets receive love and are treated well and cared for properly by their owners.

The challenge with mainstream animal liberation movements directed by welfare organizations like PETA is that their main goals are not radical enough. The issue with pets isn’t that they are poorly taken care of and thus require improved welfare; the problem with pets is that humans own them as property.

No matter how well one treats their pet, pets always retain their status as human property. A well-taken-care-of vehicle is just as much human property as a beloved pet is. The difference is that, unlike the car, a pet is a sentient being.

Gary Francione, an Animal Rights theorist and professor of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University, offers a radical assessment of pet-owning that goes beyond welfare from the perspective of sentience. ‘Sentience’ refers to the capacity to experience mental or physical sensations of pain and pleasure; scientific studies verify the sentience of pet animals. For example, pets are known to avoid walking on burning hot pavement in the summertime and strategically position themselves in front of sun-spotted floors to enjoy midday naps.

He affirms that humans possess fundamental rights because they are sentient beings. The right to not be property is among the most critical right a sentient being can have. Since pet animals have sentience, they must share the right not to be property with us.

As a sentient species, we have declared the enslavement of fellow human beings a violation of basic human rights. Like Francione, I believe we should also declare the enslavement of fellow sentient animals to be a violation of basic rights and, in response, ban the practice of pet-owning.

To rectify the property-based relationship that humans have with pets, the practice of pet-owning must come to an end. Francione believes individuals who currently own a pet should take good care of the animal until it dies. Like PETA , he explains that adoption centres and rescue facilities must only care for and re-home existing animals because we must stop bringing more domestic animals into existence. But, unlike PETA, Francione takes stronger issue with pet ownership as a whole because owning another sentient being violates its right.

Disrupting the status quo is not an easy task, especially during a global pandemic. But when it comes to the tradition of owning pets, we have a moral obligation to retire the leash that we have historically fastened on pets, each of whom are fellow sentient beings that share with us the right to be free from being owned by another sentient being.

_____ Hannah Arsenault-Gallant is a Political and Legal Thought graduate student at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, where she researches Animal Rights theory.

Hannah Arsenault-Gallant

Graduate Student at Queen’s University

11 thoughts on “ Why We Should Ban Pets ”

You have written quite a compelling essay. However, just as any argumentative piece is required to make the reader ponder, if not uncomfortable, I do not find myself completely agreeing. I do not disagree, rather I am slightly confused. So the dogma that domesticated nonhuman animals exist and as such domestication is a necessity needs to be negated then? So, the long drawn out fix to this would be to house the current few generations of nonhuman animals and find ways to weed out breeding chains? While I would like for it to be pursued, is such an initiative possible and if so what do you think its repercussions would be?

I’m respectfully going to disagree with what I’ve read here. My animals are not my property, if anything I’m their property haha, they’re family, and unfortunately better friends than my own friends. Without pets there would be negative repercussions to peoples mental and physical health. Everything has a cause and effect.

What do you suggest we do with service animals? Shall we allow the people who require those animals to suffer and go about life without the proper services?

If you really think about the goal expressed at the end of this article it simply isn’t achievable, nor would it be practical. But, well written article.

.56 percent of the dog population are service animals and even then, MOST of them aren’t even necessary. Seeing eye dogs are no more effective than canes. Medical devices can detect when a person is having a seizure and alert authorities better than a dog can, meditation, exercise, proper human commuication etc. all more effective than therapy dogs which honestly just add stress to a person’s life and barely help.

We could also have community outreach programs for those people with disabilities, and we should be encouraging that anyway, humans interacting with humans, assisting eachother in meeting our needs. What makes you think only dogs are capable of leading the blind or alerting authorities of medical emergencies? Service dogs malfunction more often than devices or people do, and the consequences are often more disasterous. There have been people who have gotten mauled by service dogs which were meant to inform the paramedics of medical emergencies.

I’m also led to believe that the author probably is reffering to the recreational ownership of pets which accounts for 99.44% of dog ownership and probably 99.95% of pet ownership. We shouldn’t not care about the people with service dogs, but considering how little of a percentage of the dog population they make up.

Also I am not inclined to believe you have any solid evidence that the negative repercussions for people’s mental health would be all that disasterous, and in fact their physical health would improve. Parasitic infections, dog attacks, noise pollution, bacterial infections, all forms of zoonotic diseases and such, they wouldn’t be a problem anymore.

The average person would be healthier, furthermore, pets take time away from human interactions and put strain on relationships. LOTS of couples have disagreements over pets and have to break up, LOTS of people don’t feel safe in their own homes because a parent, sibling, roommate, or significant other brought a dog, particularly one of an aggressive breed like a pit, rotwieler, doberman etc. into their home. LOTS of people are allergic to cats or dogs. LOTS of people would have more time to interact with human beings, or they’d be FORCED to because they couldn’t fall back on animal interaction anymore. Human beings would be more properly socialized to other human beings.

I just don’t see any way in which its not an overwhealming net positive – i mean with the thing with people with disabilities we could even employ people to fulfill the roles the dogs served, a specific economic niche would expand. Plus given the environmental impact of cats and dogs and their ecological impact better not to keep them around.

I agree with your train of thought. I believe that too many people have pets for selfish reasons. We had a dog on the farm but the dog had it’s own life. He could go for a swim or chase a rabbit but never left the property. He came in at night but did not rest on the chesterfield or sleep in our beds.

Dear Ms. Arsenault-Gallant, I’m sure it hasn’t escaped your notice that the right to own pets is NOT expressly granted by the U.S. Constitution. Your observation that historians identify the Victorian era (1837-1901) as the origin of the type of pet ownership we operate with today is quite compelling. Was such a right common to American law in 1789? I doubt it. Would you be interested in helping a campaign to ban pets in the U.S.?

The problem with pets is most of the time they disturb everyone around them that is not the owner. For every responsible owner there are 50 irresponsible owners. In my experience pets serve as an annoyance and represent filth for me.

There is nothing wrong with being a pet owner IF that pet owner treats the pet as lovingly as their human child, as I do. For myself, I have always had pets (cats) as a commitment for the life of the pet. The pet stays with me as a family member until it dies naturally-or if the pet gets seriously ill and would suffer by my keeping it alive-I have it “put to sleep” at the vet’s. The Bible says God Himself has a horse, and it mentions not being able to keep a type of wild animal the way people kept an animal on a leash for young women (probably some kind of dog)-God did not condemn pet ownership, and at the beginning of human existence in the Garden of Eden God gave all existing animals to Adam and Eve as companions. Animals did not become wild and eat each other until the Fall of Mankind. I support animal laws to force people to be responsible pet owners….such as not buying them as “toys” that one discards if they get sick of them (either a life commitment or you don’t have a pet, period), forced vet visits for necessary shots, checkups, etc., severe fines or even jail time if people abandon pets in public or in the wild to fend for themselves, and better breeding standards for breeds, that breeders are forced to breed against diseases and not merely for the look of a breed-for example bull dogs and Persian cats must be able to breathe and not suffer for their flat faces. All animal fights must cease (dog fights, cock fights, Betta fish fights, etc.). For all of the above, I’m all in. But to deny responsible pet owners the joy of having any more pets after their current ones die off, plus denying future generations of little boys a puppy and old ladies a cat in their laps, is just plain wrong. It’s just one more thing that people are trying to do these days that is unnatural and goes against human nature. Some peoples’ human family members died off and don’t find it easy to fit into others’ lives, particularly for people stuck living where they are the cultural minority and it seems most people around them judge them for being culturally different or prefer to stick to their own kind and refuse them a seat at the table equally. Thanks to globalism, many people can’t live in a neighborhood community with people of their own culture anymore. For many of these it’s pretty lonely for them, and having a pet eases some of that loneliness. Not everyone is gifted with that with what makes a person popular-good looks, charm and an extroverted personality, and for those not gifted it’s hard to find people who will fill in the places that their family who died off left. Dogs and cats have a shorter lifespan in the wild, rarely dying old and usually suffer non peaceful deaths-either getting too old to hunt and starving to death or being killed by illness or another animal. In between they may see their relatives killed or eaten in front of them, and are plagued with parasites their entire lives without relief. Animals lowest on the food chain, such as rabbits-provided they are allowed to live their lives inside the home and outside of a cage-are 100% better off as pets than living in the wild-because in the wild they constantly live in fear because almost EVERY meat-eating animal eats bunnies. Look up the term “rabbit binky” online in video form, such as YouTube…you’ll see bunnies doing their “happy dance”-proof positive that they feel just fine being someone’s indoor pet and that they don’t see themselves as a human’s captive slave. While I would agree that animals such as whales, dolphins, lions and bears are better off left alone in the wild, those creatures already domesticated are no worse off and may be even better off with (caring and responsible) people. The fact that such an animal lives longer in “captivity” shows that the animal has less stress in the wild. And it is said that cats domesticated themselves. Sorry to ramble on, but I am sick of having EVERYTHING in my culture seemingly taken away from me (I’m White and American) and animals are innocent and childlike, unchanging. I do not feel any mere human being has any right to deny me or any future-born person the right of pet ownership-provided they love that animal as their own and give it all the medical attention and love that creature needs.

Oops-I meant that animals that live longer with humans than in the wild have less stress THAN in the wild.

P.S. humans can either bring a bit of Heaven or Hell on Earth to animals, depending on how we treat them.

P.S.S. One can both keep domestic animals in existence and reduce the amount of unwanted animals by having smaller amounts of new animals being born and the ones already in existence being adopted first. But not phasing them out entirely.

P.S.S.S. I believe in “no kill” shelters only and that no animal should be “put down” unless it is suffering with an incurable illness that causes pain or a crippling issue that causes misery that can’t be stopped. And that foster care instead of being cooped up in cages 24-7 should be practiced for animals waiting for “forever homes”. One last thought-look up on the internet the video “zombie fox with rabies” and then look up the video “fox running away with cell phone”( both videos are on YouTube) and then ask yourselves which fox was really happier with their life in the end. (Yes foxes are being domesticated now-it takes a very special owner to have them as they are the needs of a dog with the independent nature of a cat!! Not for everyone!)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Latest + Beyond the Issues

Public Seminar is a journal of ideas, politics, and culture published by the Public Seminar Publishing Initiative at The New School. We are a non-profit organization, wholly supported by The New School, and by the generosity of our sponsors and readers.

Connect With Us

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Why owning a pet is good for body and mind

Pet ownership should be recognised as a public health strategy due to the profound benefits for individuals, families and communities, says Steven Feldman

In his article ( Want to truly have empathy for animals? Stop owning pets, 4 February ), Troy Vettese discounts the significant benefits that pets bring to the lives of billions of people worldwide. Scientific research shows that human-animal interactions can have a powerful impact on mental, physical and social health for individuals, families and entire communities.

In fact, the benefits of pets are so profound that Vettese should consider making a full U-turn – we should have more pets and we should view them as a low-cost, high-reward public health strategy .

Pets can buffer stress and help address social isolation. Health professionals are increasingly recommending pets and incorporating them into the long-term management of mental health conditions. Think about the cost of heart disease and obesity. Research demonstrates that pet owners have lower blood pressure, are more likely to achieve the recommended levels of daily exercise and are less likely to be obese. In addition, children with pets are more likely to be physically active.

Pets benefit from their close relationship with people just as much as we do. Pet owners consider their pets to be an important part of the family, and are willing to make significant lifestyle changes for them. According to a survey , 61% of pet owners would change housing to accommodate a pet, and 45% would change jobs to have increased time with pets at home. Most importantly, international research conducted in nine countries shows that strong bonds result in better veterinary care for the pets we love.

Environmentally, pets help prevent waste, reducing agriculture’s footprint . Ingredients produced during human food processing that would otherwise be discarded are safely used in pet food.

Scientific research tells the real story. The right headline should be: “Get a pet for good health at both ends of the leash!” Steven Feldman President, Human-Animal Bond Research Institute

• Health & wellbeing
• Mental health

Most viewed

15 reasons why having a pet is good for you and your family

• Owning a pet can positively impact not only your health but also your lifestyle.
• Couples who own a pet together have lower blood pressure and interact with each other more than couples who do not own a pet.
• Studies show that pet owners are more likely to get to know people in their neighborhood than those who do not have a pet.
• Animals can help children by teaching them about empathy and responsibility, and can even boost their literacy skills.

• Visit Insider's homepage for more stories .

Whether you have a dog, cat, bird, or anything in between, pet ownership can be an adventure.

A furry friend can also keep you company through the stress or isolation of the coronavirus pandemic — this may be why pet adoption and fostering have spiked recently .

While people who adopt an animal usually think they're changing its life for the better, pets have just as much of a positive impact on the lives of their owners. If you're still on the fence about whether or not you should adopt a pet, here are 15 reasons why you need one in your life.

Having a pet can improve your mood.

Owning a pet can help reduce stress you're feeling amid the pandemic. According to studies , spending time with your pet can trigger an increased level of oxytocin, also known as the "love hormone." This is responsible for the feeling of closeness and increased bonding with your pet. It can also increase your overall mood .

Pets can also improve your social life.

Your pet could be the perfect conversation starter for your next Zoom call, but owning a pet could also help you make more friends once social distancing guidelines lift. 

Dogs are naturally curious about their environment, including other dogs and people, and they can be the catalyst for social interactions. If you own a dog, you might find strangers approaching you to ask about them.

But other pets like cats can increase your social circle  as well. According to a 2015 study conducted in Australia and the US, pet owners were significantly more likely to get to know people in their neighborhood than those who did not own a pet.

If you're looking for love, a pet can help with that, too.

Pets can be a great way to increase your chances of finding love . According to a survey by Purina , 54 percent of surveyed pet owners said their pets helped them start a conversation with someone they were interested in. Nearly two thirds of people said they were likely to date someone who owned a pet, and one in three would want to meet someone who has pictures of their pet in their online dating profile.

And if you're in a relationship, a pet can make you both happier and less stressed.

According to research cited by Psychology Today, couples who own a pet together have lower blood pressure and are happier on average than their peers. They also interact more with each other than couples who don't own a pet.

Owning a pet can make you a better person.

According to a study by BarkBox , owning a dog can make you a better person (or at least make you think you are!). Of those surveyed for the study, 93% of pet owners said they could easily name at least one way their pet had made them a better person, including making them noticeably more patient or affectionate.

Bringing your pet to work can boost your morale and help control your stress levels.

Showing off your pet can brighten those work-from-home video meetings, not only for yourself but also for your co-workers.

A 2012 study conducted at a North Carolina manufacturing company found that employees who brought their dogs to the workplace experienced lower stress levels throughout the day, reported being happier in their jobs, and had a higher opinion of their employer.

Pets can also help you unwind after a long day at work.

Pets can give you comfort and a sense of relief. A 2003 study  found the act of petting an animal after a stressful situation reduced feelings of anxiety. "The anxiety-reducing effect applied to people with different attitudes towards animals and was not restricted to animal lovers," the study noted.

Having a pet nearby, especially a dog, can make you feel more secure.

Large dog breeds like German shepherds and Rottweilers make for great deterrents from outside threats, allowing their owners to feel safer. The popularity of Rottweilers has risen in recent years thanks to " their loyalty, confidence and protective instincts. "

You always have someone to snuggle with on cold nights.

While pets may disturb their sleep at times, some owners enjoy the comfort of curling up with their pet close by. They can make you feel at peace as you drift off to sleep.

Whether it's taking them for a walk or doing yoga, pets can make you more physically active.

Dubbed the " Lassie effect ," taking your dog for a walk also makes you more physically fit and increases the chance you're going to get your daily exercise.

You'll find immeasurable joy in playing fetch with your dog, or teaching your pet tricks.

Almost every dog owner knows the joy of playing fetch with them on a nice summer day. You can teach your dog to shake hands, roll over, and bark on command, but dogs aren't the only ones that can be taught tricks. Cats can also be trained to sit and high five on command. 

While they're not as fluffy as cats or dogs, birds like parrots can be life-long companions.

Birds are social creatures and love to play games and perform tricks. But unlike other animals, parrots and other birds have the ability to learn and mimic human speech. They also have life spans on par with a human's, with some parrots living to be over 100, meaning you'll have a friend for life.

Owning a pet can help your child's learning.

Having a pet at an early age can boost a child's confidence and empathy levels , according to Blue Cross. Pets are natural listeners, and your child may feel more comfortable practicing their reading skills aloud in front of a pet than another person. 

A pet can also teach your child about responsibility.

According to a national survey by the American Pet Product Association, 58 percent of pet owners said their animals help teach their children to be responsible. From an early age, a child can help feed, walk, and bathe a family pet.

Pets can also be the inspiration for great creative works.

Pets inspire people in various of ways. English actor Oliver Reed reviewed his movie script with his cat, Felix, nearby. When he was coming up with his theories, Albert Einstein would often watch his cat, Tiger, move about. It was an injured dog that inspired Florence Nightingale to become a nurse. 

• A photographer captured photos of 15 pairs of dogs and their owners that look hilariously alike
• This dog adopted an abandoned kitten after losing her own puppies, and the photos will warm your heart
• 12 dogs with disabilities who are living their best life
• Belarus the cross-eyed rescue cat has stolen the hearts of thousands online, and now he's helping other animals in need

• Main content

Should Exotic Animals Be Kept As Pets Argumentative Essay Example

Many exotic pets, such as big cats, are one of the many animals close to extinction. Lately, there has been a debate on whether people should be able to have ownership of exotic pets or be banned from owning them. Many people who have owned exotic pets have struggled with keeping proper care of them. The simple answer is that the United States should ban people from being able to take ownership of such exotic animals because the animals are too expensive and hazardous to maintain for an individual; the common home does not offer the proper habitat or nutrition for the animals; and many conflicts would arouse from trying to license people rather than banning it all together. 

To begin with, exotic animals are too expensive and hazardous to maintain for an individual. In the past, there have been multiple times where exotic pets have killed or injured their owner. A big cat in the wild only knows how to protect themselves so if you spook the animal, their automatic instinct is to protect themselves no matter what or who it is. Mike Tyson, a famous fighter, took ownership of some cats and was unable to acquire proper licensing for them (“Ban Ownership of Exotic Pets”). Therefore if a rich man cannot pay the expenses, an individual with less money would not be able to support an exotic animal either. 

Secondly, a common home does not have the space to house an exotic animal or provide the proper nutrition for one. Imagine being kept in a backyard and not being able to go anywhere a person would want to go and being fed food that does not meet a human's needs. The habitat an exotic animal needs is not available in a suburb. They belong in the wild where they have room to wander and get the daily exercise they need. Not to mention, the nutrition an animal requires is very expensive and hard to come by. The article “Ban Ownership of Exotic Pets” states, “Unable to satisfy the animal’s needs for space and nutrition, which often happens, the owner becomes, in effect, an abuser.” (“Ban Ownership of Exotic Pets”). Lastly, many conflicts could arise from trying to license owners instead of just banning it all together. 

In conclusion, these are a few of the many reasons exotic pets should not be owned by individuals. According to the article “License the Cats,” some people can afford to maintain exotic animals and give them a proper place to live and proper nutrition. However, it is not fair to the animals to be in a place where they do not belong. Animals deserve to be in the wild where they have their own freedom to wander, hunt, and have a happy and suitable life. The United States should take away the opportunity to have the right to own such beautiful, wild animals. Put the exotic animals in their natural habitat and let them roam freely.

Related Samples

• Personal Essay Example: Freshman Year Goals
• Reflective Essay about Laughter
• 50 Minutes of Friendship Essay Example
• How to Reduce Negative Impacts of Fast Fashion Essay Example
• Narrative Essay about Running
• A Day in the Life of Me, But Older
• Essay Example of Our Cultural Lens
• Personal Essay on Living With Depression
• Narrative Essay about Torture
• Essay Sample on Kindness

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Life Dog

Why Dogs are the Best Pets: Exploting Persuasive Arguments

Table of contents, unconditional love and loyalty, stress relief and emotional support, encouragement of physical activity, enhanced social interactions, protection and security.

• Odendaal, J. S. (2000). Animal-assisted therapy—Magic or medicine? Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 49(4), 275-280.
• Anderson, W. P., & Reid, C. M. (1992). The short-term effects of pet therapy on the elderly. Gerontology, 38(6), 307-310.
• Wood, L., Martin, K., Christian, H., Nathan, A., Lauritsen, C., Houghton, S., ... & McCune, S. (2015). The pet factor—Companion animals as a conduit for getting to know people, friendship formation and social support. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0122085.
• Wells, D. L. (2009). The effects of animals on human health and well-being. Journal of Social Issues, 65(3), 523-543.
• Nagasawa, M., Mogi, K., & Kikusui, T. (2009). Attachment between humans and dogs. Japanese Psychological Research, 51(3), 209-221.

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• Valentines Day
• Personal Strengths

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

Essay on Having a Pet

Students are often asked to write an essay on Having a Pet in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Having a Pet

Introduction.

Having a pet is a joyous experience. Pets are not just animals; they become a part of our family, bringing happiness and companionship.

The Joy of Having Pets

Pets offer unconditional love and loyalty. They’re always there to cheer us up, making our lives more enjoyable. Playing with pets can also relieve stress.

Pets Teach Responsibility

Having a pet teaches responsibility. Pets need care and attention, teaching us about commitment and empathy.

Health Benefits of Pets

Pets can be good for our health too. Walking a dog encourages exercise, and stroking a cat can lower blood pressure.

In conclusion, having a pet is a rewarding experience that brings joy, teaches responsibility, and promotes health.

250 Words Essay on Having a Pet

The companionship of pets.

Pets have long been regarded as man’s best friend, providing companionship, loyalty, and emotional support. They are not just animals, but rather an integral part of our lives, enriching our experiences and teaching us about empathy, responsibility, and unconditional love.

Psychological Benefits

Research has indicated that having a pet can significantly reduce stress levels and improve mental health. The simple act of petting an animal can trigger the release of endorphins, creating a sense of calm and happiness. Furthermore, pets can alleviate feelings of loneliness, providing a sense of purpose and companionship.

Physical Health and Well-being

Pets, particularly dogs, require regular exercise, which inadvertently encourages their owners to lead more active lifestyles. This can result in improved cardiovascular health, reduced obesity rates, and overall better physical health.

Teaching Responsibility and Empathy

Having a pet is a long-term commitment that requires responsibility. Feeding, grooming, and caring for a pet can teach individuals, especially young adults, about responsibility. Moreover, pets can help develop empathy as we learn to understand and cater to their needs.

In essence, having a pet is a rewarding experience that offers numerous benefits. It is a relationship that goes beyond the physical realm, touching upon emotional and psychological aspects. Despite the challenges and responsibilities that come with pet ownership, the invaluable lessons and companionship they offer make it a worthwhile endeavor.

500 Words Essay on Having a Pet

The joy and responsibility of having a pet.

Pets, in many ways, can be considered as an extension of our family. They provide companionship, emotional support, and can even contribute to improved physical health. However, owning a pet also comes with significant responsibilities and potential challenges.

The Psychological Benefits of Pet Ownership

The psychological benefits of having a pet are well-documented. Research indicates that pets can help reduce stress, anxiety, and depression. Their constant companionship can alleviate feelings of loneliness and isolation, fostering a sense of belonging and purpose. For instance, the act of petting a dog or a cat has been shown to release oxytocin, a hormone associated with stress reduction and mood enhancement.

Physical Health Advantages

Beyond mental health, pets also contribute to physical health. Regular walks with a dog, for example, promote cardiovascular health and fitness. Pets can also help their owners maintain a regular sleep schedule, as they typically require feeding, exercise, and bathroom breaks at consistent times.

Life Skills Acquired

Owning a pet can also impart valuable life skills, particularly for young adults. The responsibility of caring for another living being can foster empathy, compassion, and responsibility. It also provides an opportunity to learn about the cycle of life and death, helping to develop emotional resilience.

The Challenges of Pet Ownership

Despite these benefits, pet ownership is not without its challenges. The financial costs can be significant, encompassing food, veterinary care, grooming, and potential property damage. Pets also require time and attention, which can be difficult for busy individuals or families. Moreover, pets can limit spontaneity, as their needs often require planning and cannot be easily delegated.

Choosing the Right Pet

Choosing the right pet is a crucial step in ensuring a positive pet ownership experience. This decision should be based on lifestyle, living situation, financial capability, and personal preference. For example, a dog may be a poor choice for someone with a busy schedule or limited living space, while a cat or a fish may be a more suitable option.

In conclusion, owning a pet can be a rewarding experience, offering numerous psychological and physical health benefits. However, it is not a decision to be taken lightly, as pets require significant time, attention, and financial resources. Prospective pet owners should carefully consider their lifestyle and capabilities before welcoming a pet into their home. Ultimately, the joy and companionship pets offer can greatly enrich our lives, making the challenges worthwhile.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Harriet Tubman
• Essay on Happiness
• Essay on Gun Violence

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Discuss the arguments for and against raising pets.

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Writing9 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

• Check your IELTS essay »
• Find essays with the same topic
• View collections of IELTS Writing Samples
• Show IELTS Writing Task 2 Topics

3)Although countries with long average working hours are economically successful, this often has some negative social consequences. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people argue that internet-based lectures is better type of lectures. the other tend to believe that university-based lecture is still needed. explain both side of the view and give your opinion., some people say that competitive sports have advantages for people from different groups and countries, while others believe that competitive sports only create problems between people. discuss both views and give your opinion., more and more people tend to procrastinate in tasks these days. some people think procrastination is the prime reason for the failure in life. do you agree or disagree, some people feel that manufacturers and supermarkets have the responsibility to reduce the amount of packaging of goods. others argue that customers should avoid buying goods with lot of packaging. discuss both views and give your opinion.

• Human Editing
• Free AI Essay Writer
• AI Outline Generator
• AI Paragraph Generator
• Paragraph Expander
• Essay Expander
• Literature Review Generator
• Research Paper Generator
• Thesis Generator
• Paraphrasing tool
• AI Rewording Tool
• AI Sentence Rewriter
• AI Rephraser
• AI Paragraph Rewriter
• Summarizing Tool
• AI Content Shortener
• Plagiarism Checker
• AI Detector
• AI Essay Checker
• Citation Generator
• Reference Finder
• Book Citation Generator
• Legal Citation Generator
• Journal Citation Generator
• Reference Citation Generator
• Scientific Citation Generator
• Source Citation Generator
• Website Citation Generator
• URL Citation Generator
• Proofreading Service
• Editing Service
• AI Writing Guides
• AI Detection Guides
• Citation Guides
• Grammar Guides
• Paraphrasing Guides
• Plagiarism Guides
• Summary Writing Guides
• STEM Guides
• Humanities Guides
• Language Learning Guides
• Coding Guides
• Top Lists and Recommendations
• AI Detectors
• AI Writing Services
• Coding Homework Help
• Citation Generators
• Editing Websites
• Essay Writing Websites
• Language Learning Websites
• Math Solvers
• Paraphrasers
• Plagiarism Checkers
• Reference Finders
• Spell Checkers
• Summarizers
• Tutoring Websites

Most Popular

Ai or not ai a student suspects one of their peer reviewer was a bot, how to summarize a research article, loose vs lose, how to cite a blog, apa paraphrasing, why people should not be allowed to keep exotic animals as pets essay sample, example.

Almost no one, except perhaps the richest people, can provide a wild animal with all its necessary conditions. Exotic animals have unique needs. For example, wild tigers need a large territory to roam around in. A venomous Monocled cobra, which can be legally bought in a number of states for a puny $100, will repeatedly strike when feeling in danger. A bobcat can hunt a prey eight times bigger than itself. Chimpanzees and other primates require a lot of space for climbing, and sea mammals need vast water basins to swim freely. The examples are numerous. These needs require specific living conditions—or at least housing structures. Can an average American citizen afford keeping an exotic pet? Not just for a year or two, but for 25 or 50 years? Just for an example, the annual cost of keeping a tiger (in a cage) approaches $6,000. Clearly, being a keeper of a wild animal is beyond the capabilities of an average citizen ( National Geographic ).

If the previous paragraph did not persuade you, consider the danger of biological contamination. According to different estimates, at least one in three reptiles (which are among the most popular exotic pets—iguanas, for example) is a host for salmonella and shigella bacteria; the overall percentage with salmonella is probably up to 90 percent. According to data provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 90 percent of imported green iguanas carry unfamiliar strains of intestinal bacteria. Other species are not safer. About 25 percent of both imported and domestically-bred macaques are reported to have had the herpes B virus. Among other diseases carried and transported by wild animals, one should mention such infections as chlamydia, yaba virus, giardia, tuberculosis, measles, marburg virus, hepatitis A, campylobacteriosis, rabies, streptothricosis, and a lot of other malicious microorganisms, including worms ( ASPCA ).

In addition, wild animals can pose a direct physical threat to their owners. During the last 10 years, there have been dozens of attacks committed by captive big cats, such as lions and tigers; in one of the saddest incidents, a tiger killed a three-year-old boy, who was its guardian’s grandson. In another case, a Bengal tiger has bitten off an arm of a four-year-old boy. Since the beginning of the century, four people were hunted down (and killed) by wolf hybrids. This is not to mention the cases when wild animals attacked other domesticated pets—cats, dogs, and so on ( PETA ).

Along with well-known ecological problems—such as the extinction of species, or the destruction of rainforests, there is also another significant issue: people tend to keep exotic wild animals as pets. This is a bad practice, since wild animals require unique conditions that an average American cannot afford; exotic animals carry and transmit exotic diseases, which can pose a threat to owners; and there were numerous incidents when a captivated wild animal attacked its owner, or members of their families. All this is solid proof in favor of the claim that wild exotic animals should not be kept as pets.

There are many examples of persuasive essays like this on the Internet. However, according to the best website for assignment help , the best samples can be found on the specific platforms with academic works. So, don’t limit yourself from checking those out.

“Wild at Home: Exotic Animals as Pets.” Nat Geo WILD. N.p., 03 Oct. 2012. Web. 11 Aug. 2015. <http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/wild/animal-intervention/articles/wild-at-home-exotic-animals-as-pets/>

“Exotic Animals as Pets.” ASPCA. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Aug. 2015. <https://www.aspca.org/adopt/adoption-tips/exotic-animals-pets>

“Exotic Animals as ‘Pets'” PETA. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Aug. 2015. <http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/exotic-animals-pets/>

Follow us on Reddit for more insights and updates.

Comments (0)

Welcome to A*Help comments!

We’re all about debate and discussion at A*Help.

We value the diverse opinions of users, so you may find points of view that you don’t agree with. And that’s cool. However, there are certain things we’re not OK with: attempts to manipulate our data in any way, for example, or the posting of discriminative, offensive, hateful, or disparaging material.

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

More from Best Persuasive Essay Examples

May 28 2023

How does outdoor exercises impact our health and well-being? Essay Sample, Example

Should Screen Time Be Limited? Essay Sample, Example

Why Video Games are Good for the Brain. Essay Sample, Example

Related writing guides, writing a persuasive essay.

Remember Me

What is your profession ? Student Teacher Writer Other

Forgotten Password?

Username or Email

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Animal Welfare — Why Exotic Animals Should Not Be Pets

Why Exotic Animals Should not Be Pets

• Categories: Animal Rights Animal Welfare

About this sample

Words: 1092 |

Published: Sep 7, 2023

Words: 1092 | Pages: 2 | 6 min read

Table of contents

Impact on animal welfare, promotion of animal rights, capture from natural habitats, inhumane living conditions, public safety risks.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues Environment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 687 words

4 pages / 1656 words

4 pages / 1668 words

2 pages / 868 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Animal Welfare

The meat industry has long been a subject of controversy, with debates ranging from its environmental impact to animal welfare concerns. In recent years, the rise of veganism has brought a new perspective to this age-old [...]

Orca captivity has long been a controversial topic that has sparked debates and raised global concerns about the ethical implications of keeping these majestic creatures in captivity for entertainment purposes. While marine [...]

For centuries, zoos have been a popular way for people to observe and learn about exotic animals from all over the world. However, the debate over the ethics and morality of keeping animals in captivity has been a contentious [...]

Dogs have been cherished companions to humans for centuries, providing unconditional love, loyalty, and companionship. In today's world, the bond between humans and dogs has only grown stronger, with dogs playing various roles [...]

IntroductionBeing a veterinarian is a noble and rewarding profession that involves providing medical care to animals, ensuring their well-being, and preventing and treating diseases. While the path to becoming a veterinarian [...]

 The job of a marine biologist is to study and conserve the ocean, and all the creatures within it. While their main focus is the water, a lot of their work is conducted on dry land, as they fight for regional laws, fisherman [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Keeping Exotic Pets and Negative Consequences Essay

Introduction, works cited.

Specific Purpose: To convince conscious pet-owners that keeping exotic pets harms the latter, the solution is to advocate for better regulations because I do not want to play God and would rather start being responsible for protecting the environment.

Central Idea: To be convinced not to keep exotic pets.

• Many exotic pets die even before being sold, and the rest suffer in an unsuitable environment.
• Not making inquiries before buying such an animal results in insufficient resources and a pet’s death.
• Everyone in the audience probably has a pet and can feel empathy towards a non-human being.
• After researching the topic properly, I hope to convince you that keeping exotic pets is harmful to them, so the solution is to advocate for better regulations because I do not want to play God and would rather start being responsible for protecting the environment.

(Transition: Before I tell about advocating for better regulations, allow me to explain the issue with exotic pets).

Keeping exotic pets can be harmful to them due to inadequate care (problem). According to PETA, most of them die during capture and transportation, and those who survive the ordeal suffer the same fate at people’s homes, barely living for more than a year. Such pets require specialized diets and facilities, which are not easily available or affordable (Henn). Some impatient owners may leave them outdoors to solve the issue, but it is equally lethal for the animal (PETA). It may also become too distressed and try to escape, leading to a similar outcome (Henn). Meanwhile, several stakeholders, including smugglers, sellers, and other indifferent owners, appear to benefit from the situation.

The problem is rampant due to inadequate legal regulation regarding exotic pets, so the best solution would be to advocate for its improvement (solution). Better laws can remove the loopholes used by traders and make it mandatory to monitor animal lives to prevent abuse by smugglers or owners (Nuwer). The advocacy can be done through starting petitions or signing the existing ones, appealing to the local government, or joining forces with the Wildlife Conservation Society or another organization (Nuwer). As a result, exotic pets will not be openly sold, and their lives will be spared; moreover, a potential owner may avoid being incriminated for illegally possessing one and will opt for a safer option.

(Transition: As you have the understanding of the issue and its potential solution by advocating for better regulations in the field, I will share why it resonates with me).

I do not want to play God and would rather start being responsible for protecting the environment (emotional appeal). People buy exotic pets simply because they are unique or beautiful without caring for their survival, which is a consumerist approach to nature, and I cannot accept it. I believe that those animals are living beings deserving of freedom, and by leaving them alone, we will eventually learn how to save the planet, too.

I am out of time, but I am certain that now you see why it could be very beneficial to advocate for better regulations concerning exotic pets instead of keeping them.

Henn, Corrine. “Here’s Why Exotic Animals Belong in the Wild, Not as ‘Pets’ in Our Backyards.” One Green Planet , 2021, Web.

Nuwer, Rachel. “Many Exotic Pets Suffer or Die in Transit, and Beyond—and the U.S. Government is Failing to Act.” National Geographic , 2021, Web.

PETA. “Exotic Animals as ‘Pets.’” PETA , Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, October 5). Keeping Exotic Pets and Negative Consequences. https://ivypanda.com/essays/keeping-exotic-pets-and-negative-consequences/

"Keeping Exotic Pets and Negative Consequences." IvyPanda , 5 Oct. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/keeping-exotic-pets-and-negative-consequences/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Keeping Exotic Pets and Negative Consequences'. 5 October.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Keeping Exotic Pets and Negative Consequences." October 5, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/keeping-exotic-pets-and-negative-consequences/.

1. IvyPanda . "Keeping Exotic Pets and Negative Consequences." October 5, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/keeping-exotic-pets-and-negative-consequences/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Keeping Exotic Pets and Negative Consequences." October 5, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/keeping-exotic-pets-and-negative-consequences/.

• The PETA print advertisement
• Cultural Analysis of PETA Commercial
• The Birth of a Consumerist Society
• Impatient Rehabilitation Center's Services
• The Character of Jesus
• Happy Cows Case: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
• Exotic Species Threat to Native Species
• Retributivism and Fallible Systems of Punishment
• Value of Anti-Consumerist Movements
• Ethical Problems With Non-Human Slavery and Abuse
• The Evolution of Communication Structures in Animals
• Compulsory Microchipping of Dogs
• Dogs: What Can't They Do?
• Instinctive Behavior in Animals
• Seasonal Trend of Fertility in Pigs