Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

People and Their Animal Companions: Navigating Moral Constraints in a Harmful, Yet Meaningful World

  • Published:
Philosophical Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Those who claim to be committed to the moral equality of animals don’t always act as if they think all animals are equal. For instance, many animal liberationists spend hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars each year on food, toys, and medical care for their companion animals. Surely, more animals would be helped if the money spent on companion animals were donated to farmed animal protection organizations. Moreover, many animal liberationists feed their companion animals the flesh of farmed animals, and some let their cats roam outdoors, foreseeing that they will kill wildlife. Maybe these companion-animal loving animal liberationists are moral hypocrites. Or maybe their behavior is justified. I defend the latter claim. By developing an ethic that emphasizes the moral significance of life-meaning and recognizes the important role that companion animals play in giving meaning to human lives, I argue that there are stringent side-constraints that apply to companion animals, but not to other animals. Consequently, it isn’t hypocritical to prioritize companion animals over other animals. We can have (and value) our carnivorous companions and be animal liberationists too.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. By animals, I mean creatures who are, at the very least, sentient.

  2. Nonpersons still can be harmed by death, insofar as death may deprive them of opportunities for satisfaction. But the harm of being deprived of the opportunity to live a meaningful life is greater than the harm of being deprived of opportunities for satisfaction.

  3. Contra Hauskeller (2019), a meaningful life is more than just a “life worth living.” A life may be worth living even if it’s not meaningful, such as a life in the experience machine. So, even if animals don’t have meaningful lives, they still may have lives worth living. As I will argue later, the inherent value of a life doesn’t depend on its intrinsic value. So although it may be “good” for a creature to have intrinsically valuable experience (e.g., pleasure) and pleasure might be “worth experiencing,” the having of intrinsically valuable experiences alone doesn’t make a creature’s life valuable in-and-of-itself (i.e., meaningful).

  4. Sentient creatures certainly have inherent value, but I’m less sure of whether things, such as mountains or works of art, can have inherent value. My inclination is that some inanimate objects have inherent value, such as mountains. Either way, this doesn’t then mean that, in burning building scenarios, we are morally permitted to save inanimate objects over sentient creatures. After all, even if both humans and nonhuman animals have inherent value, this doesn’t mean that, in burning building scenarios, we are morally permitted to save a mouse over a human. In most cases, there are moral reasons to save a human over a mouse, despite that both have inherent value. Likewise, in most cases, there are moral reasons to save a sentient creature over an inanimate object, even if both have inherent value.

  5. Relatedly, Wolf (1997) says that meaningful lives are lives of active engagement in projects of worth. Wolf thus agrees that meaningful lives are devoted to things of value outside of ourselves.

  6. Most, if not all, relationships between humans form as a result of instinct or desire for pleasure. Still,these relationships can transform into meaningful relationships, insofar as once a relationship has been formed, we can come to distinctively value the other by sustaining an attachment or commitment to them because they are inherently valuable.

  7. This also explains why abusive relationships aren’t meaningful. In abusive relationships, the abuser clearly de-values the abused.

  8. So, this third criterion of meaningful relationships is an extension of the first.

  9. Relatedly, we can recognize that others have inherent value without forming a relationship with them. For instance, we recognize the inherent value of another valuable creature when we refrain from harming that creature for the creature’s sake. But to genuinely value the dignity of the creature is to do more than just refrain from harming the creature for the creature’s sake.

  10. There are exceptions. For instance, the harm of death for a human who has only one more mediocre day of life left to live is arguably less bad than the harm of death for a nonhuman animal who has a long life of happiness to look forward to.

  11. This doesn’t mean that it is permissible to sacrifice animals in order to prevent mild discomfort to people. After all, although the harm of death for animals is not as significant as the harm of death for persons, animals are still harmed by death, insofar as death deprives them of opportunities for satisfaction.

  12. Of course there are exceptions. I am, for instance, justified in killing a culpable aggressor if doing so is necessary to save the life of an innocent person (including myself).

  13. Similarly, the reason why it’s usually impermissible to kill a person to save the lives of persons is that we can usually save the lives of persons by killing nonhumans.

  14. Efforts to interact with feline companions certainly are not in vain, as the majority of cats prefer interacting with their guardians over playing with toys and eating (Vitale Shreve et al. 2017).

  15. In general, companion animals are important sources of affection and support during critical life transitions such as divorce, remarriage, and widowhood (Albert & Bulcroft, 1988).

  16. The claim that self-reported childhood neglect is positively related to attachment to companion animals is supported for women only (Barlow et al., 2012).

  17. And, at the very least, for many vulnerable humans, forming relationships with animals makes it easier to form connections with valuable things beyond the self. For instance, having companion animals increases human-human social interactions and even civic engagement (Wood et al., 2005).

  18. Of course, this doesn’t mean that we are justified in feeding cats any kind of meat. We should do our best to procure animal flesh that was produced with minimal suffering. At the very least, this means that, when alternatives are available, we should refuse to purchase factory farmed meat for our carnivorous companions.

  19. Note that providing cats with outdoor access isn’t just a trivial good. It’s a deeply important one. Relatedly, permanently confining cats doesn’t just cause a minor discomfort to cats. It causes serious harm (see Abbate 2020).

  20. Others have pointed out that there is little research on the subject of the human–animal bond relative to agricultural animals (see, for example, Croney 2014).

  21. We can satisfy a cat’s desire to roam outdoors by providing them with unrestricted outdoor access and we can satisfy a dog’s desire to go outdoors by bringing them on walks and to dog parks.

References

  • Abbate, C. (2015). Comparing lives and epistemic limitations: A critique of Regan’s lifeboat from an unprivileged position. Ethics and the Environment, 20(1), 1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abbate, C. (2020). A defense of free-roaming cats from a hedonist account of feline well-being. Acta Analytica, 35, 439–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albert, A., & Bulcroft, K. (1988). Pets, families, and the life course. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 543–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alger, J., & Alger, S. (1997). Beyond mead: symbolic interaction between humans and felines. Society & Animals, 5, 65–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. (2004). Animal rights and the value of non-human life. In Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, ed. by C. Sunstein and M. Nussbaum, 277–98, New York: Oxford University Press

  • Archer, J. (1997). Why do people love their pets? Evolution & Hum Behavior, 18(4), 237–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Associated Press. “Teacup” pigs getting abandoned across America. CBS News. Retrieved from: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-trendy-teacup-pigs-fatten-up-many-americans-abandon-them/ (accessed 01 December 2021)

  • Barlow, R., Hutchinson, C., Newton, K., et al. (2012). Childhood neglect, attachment to companion animals, and stuffed animals as attachment objects in women and men. Anthrozoös, 25(1), 111–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, L., & Madresh, E. (2008). Romantic and four-legged friends: an extension of attachment theory to relationships with pets. Anthrozoös, 21, 43–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beetz, A., Kotrschal, K., Turner, D., et al. (2011). The effect of a real dog, toy dog and friendly person on insecurely attached children during a stressful task: an exploratory study. Anthrozoös, 24(4), 349–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgi, M., & Cirulli, F. (2016). Pet face: Mechanisms underlying human-animal relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, J., & Cameron-Beaumont, C. (2000). The signaling repertoire of the domestic cat and its undomesticated relatives. In D. Turner, & P. Bateson (Eds.), The biology of the domestic cat (pp. 67–94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Brickel, C. (1986). Pet facilitated therapies: a review of the literature and clinical implementation considerations. Clin Gerontol, 5, 309–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branson, S., Boss, L., Cron, S., et al. (2017). Depression, loneliness, and pet attachment in homebound older adult cat and dog owners. Journal of Mind and Medical Sciences 4(1)

  • Cacioppo, J., & Patrick, W. (2009). Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection. W. W. Norton & Company

  • Charles, N., & Davies, C. (2011). My family and other animals: Pets as kin. In Human and Other Animals, ed. by B. Carter and N. Charles, London: Palgrave Macmillan

  • Charles, N. (2014). ‘Animals just love you as you are’: Experiencing kinship across the species barrier. Sociology, 48(4), 715–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (2002). Can pets function as family members? Western Journal of Nursing Research, 24(6), 621–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croney, C. (2014). Bonding with commodities: Social constructions and implications of human–animal relationships in contemporary livestock production. Animal Frontiers, 4(3), 59–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodd, S., Cave, N., Adolphe, J., et al. (2019). Plant-based (vegan) diets for pets: A survey of pet owner attitudes and feeding practices.PloS one, 14(1), e0210806

  • Driver, J. (2005). Consequentialism and feminist ethics. Hypatia, 20(4), 183–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, I. (1990). Reactions of poultry to human beings. In Social stress in domestic animals, ed. by: R. Zayan R. and R.Dantzer, 121–131, Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers

  • Edwards, C., Heiblum, M., Tejeda, A., & Galindo, F. (2007). Experimental evaluation of attachment behaviors in owned cats. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 2, 119–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, M., Keeling, L., & Rehn, T. (2017). Cats and owners interact more with each other after a longer duration of separation. PLoS One, 12, e0185599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, C. (2000). Woman’s best friend: Pet abuse and the role of companion animals in the lives of battered women. Violence Against Women, 6(2), 162–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gammonley, J., & Yates, J. (1991). Pet projects: Animal assisted therapy in nursing homes. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 17(1), 12–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlow, H., & Zimmermann, R. (1958). The development of affective responsiveness in infant monkeys. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 102, 501–509

  • Hauskeller, M. (2019). Living like a dog: Can the life of non-human animals be meaningful? Between the Species, 23(1), 1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, J. (1992). Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemsworth, P., & Coleman, G. (2010). Human-livestock interactions: The stockperson and the productivity of intensively farmed animals. Wallingford: CABI

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Treiman, R. (1982). Doggerel: Motherese in a new context. Journal of Child Language, 9, 229–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irvine, L. (2004). If You Tame Me: Understanding our Connection with Animals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Irvine, L. (2013). Animals as lifechangers and lifesavers: Pets in the redemption narratives of homeless people. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 42(1), 3–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irvine, L. (2021). Pets (Animal–Human Relationships). In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, ed. by G. Ritzer. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeos1643

  • John, T., & Sebo, J. (2020). Consequentialism and nonhuman animals. In The Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism, ed. by D. Portmore. Oxford: Oxford University Press

  • Johnston, D. (1996). The Idea of a Liberal Theory: A Critique and Reconstruction. Princeton University Press

  • Jones, R. (1997). Fear and distress. In Animal Welfare, ed. by M. Appleby and B. Hughes, 75–87, Wallingford: CAB International

  • Kant, I. (1797). The Metaphysics of Morals, trans. M. Gregor. New York: Cambridge

  • Koyasu, H., Takefumi, K., Saho, T., & Miho, N. (2020). The gaze communications between dogs/cats and humans. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 3687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurdek, L. (2009). Pet dogs as attachment figures for adult owners. Journal Of Family Psychology, 23, 439–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComb, K., Taylor, A., Wilson, C., & Charlton, B. (2009). The cry embedded within the purr. Current Biology, 19(13), PR507–R508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNicholas, J., Gilbey, A., Rennie, A., et al. (2005). Pet ownership and human health: a brief review of evidence and issues BMJ, 331, 1252

  • Metz, T. (2019). Recent work on the meaning of “life’s meaning. Human Affairs, 29, 404–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milburn, J. (2017). Robert Nozick on nonhuman animals: Rights, value and the meaning of life. Ethical and Political Approaches to Nonhuman Animal Issues. Palgrave Macmillan

  • Nobis, N. (2018). Xenotransplantation, subsistence hunting & the pursuit of health: Lessons for animal rights based vegan advocacy. Between the Species, 21(1), 197–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical Explorations. Cambridge: Belknap

    Google Scholar 

  • Purves, D., & Delon, N. (2018). Meaning in the lives of humans and other animals. Philosophical Studies, 175, 317–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quackenbush, J., & Graveline, D. (1985). When Your Pet Dies: How to Cope with Your Feelings. Simon and Schuster

  • Quaranta, A., d’Ingeo, S., Amoruso, R., & Siniscalchi, M. (2020). Emotion recognition in cats. Animals, 10(7), 1107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, T. (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. Oakland: University of California Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieger, G., & Turner, D. (1999). How depressive moods affect the behavior of singly living persons toward their cats. Anthrozoös 12, 224–233

  • Rollin, B. (2005). Reasonable Partiality and Animal Ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 8, 105–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Root, W. (2002). Man’s best friend: Property or family member? Villanova Law Review, 47, 423

    Google Scholar 

  • Saito, A., & Shinozuka, K. (2013). Vocal recognition of owners by domestic cats (Felis catus). Animal Cognition, 16, 685–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serpell, J. (1986). In the company of animals. London: Blackwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. (1983). Interactions between pet dog and family members: An ethological study. In New Perspectives on Our Lives with Companion Animals, ed. by A. Katcher and A. Beck, 29–36, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press

  • Turner, D. (2000). The human-cat relationship. In The Domestic Cat: the biology of its behavior, ed. by D. Turner and P. Bateson, 194–206, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

  • Turner, D., & Bateson, P. (2014). The Domestic Cat: The Biology of its Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitale, K., Behnke, A., & Udell, M. (2019). Attachment bonds between domestic cats and humans. Current Biology, 29(18), R864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitale Shreve, K., Mehrkam, L., & Udell, M. (2017). Social interaction, food, scent or toys? A formal assessment of domestic pet and shelter cat (Felis silvestris catus) preferences. Behavioural Processes, 141(3), 322–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waytz, A., & Gray, K. (2018). Does online technology make us more or less sociable? Perspect Psychol Sci, 13(4), 473–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedl, M., Bauer, B., Gracey, D., et al. (2011). Factors influencing the temporal patterns of dyadic behaviours and interactions between domestic cats and their owners. Behav Processes, 86(1), 58–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisdom, J., Saedi, G., & Green, C. (2009). Another breed of “service” animals: STARS study findings about pet ownership and recovery from serious mental illness. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79(3), 430–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S. (1997). Happiness and meaning: Two aspects of the good life. Social Philosophy and Policy, 14(1), 207–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, L., Giles-Corti, B., & Bulsara, M. (2005). The pet connection: Pets as a conduit for social capital? Social Science & Medicine, 61, 1159–1173

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA

    Cheryl Abbate

Authors
  1. Cheryl Abbate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cheryl Abbate.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abbate, C. People and Their Animal Companions: Navigating Moral Constraints in a Harmful, Yet Meaningful World. Philos Stud 180, 1231–1254 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-022-01852-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-022-01852-z

Search

Navigation