Professor Gary Francione is a man who's not afraid to go out on a limb. He risks an avalanche of protests when he argues that he believes that we should abolish the institution of pet ownership.
Professor Gary Francione |
And he acknowledges that few others will talk openly on this - the most borderline issue of the animal rights movement. There are simply too many people out there, devoted to their pets who would refuse to support any animal rights group that publicised such a philosophy.
Professor Francione teaches Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University and was the first academic to teach animal rights theory in an American law school. He's also a vegan, loves animals, and - most unlikely of all - houses four dogs in his home.
"But I consider them more as refugees," he says "all of them were abandoned, and they'd be dead without me taking care of them."
Its clear that Professor Francione loves the dogs, (note the deliberate avoidance of the possessive pronoun 'his dogs'), and in fact all animals, but that doesn't stop him from arguing that animals "have no place in our world" - by that he means not that they don't belong in this world - but in our domestic human environment.
He has written:
"Domestic animals are neither a real or full part of our world or of the nonhuman world. They exist forever in a netherworld of vulnerability, dependent on us for everything and at risk of harm from an environment that they do not really understand. We have bred them to be compliant and servile, or to have characteristics that are actually harmful to them but are pleasing to us. We may make them happy in one sense, but the relationship can never be "natural" or "normal." They do not belong stuck in our world irrespective of how well we treat them."
Professor Francione believes that we have a moral obligation to look after the animals that are domesticated because we have made them dependent, but in a perfect world, there should be no such thing as a "household pet".
Tags:
pets,
Professor Gary Francione,
Rutgers University
Ken,
10-03-2009
- USA
Yeah, and mostly the same things can be said about homeless people or the very poor. Perhaps all you abolitionists would like to get rid of them first.
The problem with people like Francione (and PETA) is that they see the world in black and white, same as Bush, same as any religious fanatic, same as any Utopianist. Anything that doesn't fit perfectly into their narrow world view needs to be destroyed. The problems many dogs face are abhorrent, however, you don't get rid of the problem by getting rid of dogs. That's like saying the cure for hunger is to abolish the hungry.
Do dogs belong in our world? Yes. Should they suffer for it? No. Let's get rid of the suffering not the dogs.
cheyenne ,
01-03-2009
- usa
I fully agree with Gary Francione's arguments about phasing pets out. He is one of the most brilliant and most compassionate and no nonsensical people on earth. It is selfish to keep animals as pets. I fully agree that we have an obligation to take care of those who are in existence. Someone who argues that pets are emotional outlets for people is coming from an exploitative point of view. Its exploitation nothing else.
Matthew,
16-02-2009
- Canada
While reading through some of these responses, it frustrates me that there are people out there with the complete refusal to empathize with non-human interest...
But the truth is that this topic simply is not going to resonate with someone who believes that it is OK to use animals for food, clothing etc. Somebody who thinks that their justified in chomping down a slab of bloody carcus will definitely not question their right to have pets.
If you're going to challenge someone on the moral implications of having animals as pets then it would be wise to give them a crash course in animal rights theory first. Its too bad that this interview didnt have time for that.
Before diving into this topic we should teach people that there really is no difference between their cat and the pork roast they had for dinner; that there is no fundamental difference between a dairy cow and a human slave because they are both sentient; that there's no difference between sexism, racism, homophobia and speciesism because they are all forms of oppression. We need to teach people about the fact that animals are living, breathing social, intelligent creatures who are able to experience all of the emotions we do and that non-humans have interests just like humans do. I'm not talking about the interest to go see a movie or to become a medical doctor (thats ridiculous!) but about their most basic interests such as avoiding harm and suffering, feeling joy and pleasure, and wishing to have continued life. The life of a chicken may not be important to the person eating the chicken, but it is damn important to that chicken!
Once we open up a window of light to these folks then topics like this will most likely start to resonate with them.
On this topic I completely agree with Gary. Although its clear that animals enjoy our company and companionship just as most of us enjoy theirs, the truth is that we cannot continue to have relationships with companion animals in a world that shows 100% equal consideration for both human and non human interests. The favour will always lean to us. And if anybody is going to take animal interests seriously then this topic needs to be given consideration. Furthermore, having companion animals means that the majority of breeders will be breading for profit... this will only reinforce the commodity status and economic use of animals.
jasmin,
11-02-2009
- India
How shocking that some people want the animals to go extinct. We all-flora and fauna, are a part of eco-system, with every living being as important as the human beings, in preserving the earth. Wonder why cannot we co-exist as different species and as human beings belonging to different races! But we are so busy, annihilating others-animals as well as races.And religion is the dividing factor. Wonder who sowed the seeds of religion, to divide and destroy!!!
Lynn,
l.sawyer08@btinternet.com,
11-02-2009
- UK
First of all millions of dogs, cats and others are left to rot and die worldwide. Even in the best home no one can guarantee that a dog's descendants will be well-treated. Secondly, pets are brought into existance for selfish reasons then dumped on people who care en masse when owners get bored, people like me end up with dogs, rabbits, cats, mice etc, and love them but resent the choice argument as we are the ones who end up taking the responsibility. Thirdly, pets take up resources, have an environmental impact and piss off other humans (e.g. dog poo). Phase pets out, in fact let our own numbers diminish too and give wild animals room to flourish, we should see to our own emotional needs as a species.
Steve,
10-02-2009
- USA
PETA also believes this philosophy. Unfortunately the state of Virginia (where PETA is based) requires animal care groups to keep euthanasia records. So much for "free the animals". PETA kills most of the animals in their facilities. Here is the 2006 report (http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2006) if you search you can probably find a newer report, I assure you the trend continues. Cat adoption rate: 0.04%, Dogs: 0.38%. Clearly they would rather kill the animals then send them to a loving home. I too volunteer in shelters and admit we have a "glut" of animals, but can attest to the fact animals love people just as much as people love them.
David Berridge,
09-02-2009
- Canada
Sic 'em Boy!!!
Alex C.,
09-02-2009
- United States of America
For the past six years, I've been working in an animal shelter, and I also have ten rescued cats that live with me. I agree with Professor Francione.
We have an obligation to care for the pets that are currently in existence, but I do not think we should be breeding any new ones. If I were in charge of the last breeding pair of dogs (or cats), I would let them go extinct.
For more information about Gary Francione, see:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/
http://www.gary-francione.com/
Carlos Borjal,
09-02-2009
- USA
Who does he think he is telling people about the morality of having pets. Pets are emotional outlets for a lot of people who otherwise may have trouble connecting to other people. And of course, pets are raised to be subservient to humans, you can't have it any other way. Why, you wouldn't want to adopt an animal so it can gobble you up in the future. The good professor is so silly he ought to find something else to talk about, I think that word "professor" is getting into his head. He should condisder a pet gorilla.
jasmin,
09-02-2009
- India
I agree with the professor. Having a pet today, is more of a fashion and a status symbol. It is just like having trophies of hunted animals in the living rooms, in the inglorious past. Only few people, adopt pets out of compassion or dire need. Most of the times, the pets are neglected and tied or caged in the houses. It is indeed cruel. My dad was fond of parrots and we had two of them. They were lovely and talked a lot but their caged life depressed me. Unfortunately both were pawed to death by a viley cat, when we weren't around. I was unhappy when dad bought a third parrot for the empty cage. It was very young and beautiful. One day, I opened the cage, and let the parrot fly into the vast skies. It flew over me once and disappeared. I was caught by dad then and there. I got a good thrashing, but strangely, it did not hurt a bit. Dad never bought parrots again.
