Skip to main content

Re-defending Feline Liberty: a Response to Fischer

Abstract

In response to my (2019) defense of house-based, free-roaming cats, Bob Fischer (Acta Analytica 35 (3): 463–468, 2020) argues that cat guardians have a duty to permanently confine their felines to the indoors. His main argument is that house-based cats cause an all-things-considered harm to the animals they kill and that this harm is not outweighed by the harm cats endure as a consequence of feline imprisonment. He moreover claims that while we can justify the restriction of feline liberty because cats are not “full agents” and are under our care, we cannot justify restricting the liberty of “full agents” who are not under our care. Against Fischer, I argue that even if cats cause an all-things-considered harm to wildlife, the harm of permanent confinement is a greater harm. Moreover, I challenge Fischer’s claim that cats are not full agents and his claim that we can justify permanently confining creatures under our care. Thus, as I previously argued, cat guardians have a duty to, under certain conditions, provide outdoor access to their felines.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The level of well-being of a creature is determined by subtracting the total amount of negative experiences from the total number of pleasant experiences in that creature’s life.

  2. 2.

    It is not an all-things-considered harm to kill a creature who does not have, and will never have, well-being. Although prey animals might have the desire for continued existence, we are not always obligated to respect this interest, as sometimes respecting an animal’s desires would harm that animal’s subject welfare. For instance, my cat might have a desire to pounce on a rattlesnake, but I still should not let her do this, since doing so is a serious threat to her subject welfare. The only interests we are required to respect are those that promote the welfare of individuals. Since promoting an animal’s desire to go on living when she does not have, and will never have, well-being would not promote, and may even harm, her subject welfare, we are not obligated to respect an animal’s desire to go on living when she does not have, and will never have, well-being.

  3. 3.

    Thank you to an anonymous Acta Analytica reviewer for encouraging me to consider and address this objection.

  4. 4.

    While it is true that millions of cats are killed by road traffic accidents each year, we must be mindful that we cannot move from the claim that “millions of cats are killed by road traffic accidents each year” to the claim that “all cats with outdoor access face a high risk of being killed from a road traffic accident.” After all, there are certain factors that make cats highly vulnerable to road traffic accidents, such as being young, roaming outdoors at night, crossing busy roads, and a lack of safety-training, and many of these risk factors can be mitigated by cat guardians. For instance, cat guardians can keep their very young cats indoors; they can keep their cats indoors at night; and they can train their cats to avoid dangerous roads.

  5. 5.

    Thank you to an anonymous Acta Analytica reviewer for encouraging me to consider and respond to this objection.

  6. 6.

    Although perhaps a “skilled” serial killer, when stalking, kidnapping, and killing his victims, could be said to participate in a non-ethological, mentally-absorbing, and challenging activity while using cognitive skill and control. But given that such serial killers are not, while Stan is, cognitively impaired, this point is irrelevant.

  7. 7.

    Moreover, because of Stan’s severe cognitive impairments, he probably lacks the capacity to enjoy human ethological behavior at all. So, it is likely that the only pleasures available to him are bodily pleasures, which he certainly can enjoy in the indoors.

  8. 8.

    Thank you to an anonymous Acta Analytica reviewer for encouraging me to consider and respond to this objection.

References

  1. Abbate, C. (2019). A defense of free-roaming cats from a hedonist account of feline well-being. Acta Analytica, 35(3), 439–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12136-019-00408-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Abbate, C. (2020). Animal rights and the duty to harm. Journal for Ethics and Moral Philosophy, 3(1), 5–26.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baker, P., Molony, S., Stone, E., Cuthill, I., & Harris, S. (2008). Cats about town: is predation by free-ranging pet cats Felis catus likely to affect urban bird populations?: Predation by pet cats and urban bird populations. Ibis, 150, 86–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bradshaw, J. (2013). Cat Senses. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Calver, M., Adams, G., Clark, W., & Pollock, K. (2013). Assessing the safety of collars used to attach predation deterrent devices and ID tags to pet cats. Animal Welfare, 22, 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cuddington, K. (2019). “Would a reduction in the number of owned cats outdoors in Canada and the US increase animal welfare?” Effective Altruism Forum. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/QwPg6C43s6wKZ2tv7/would-a-reduction-in-the-number-of-owned-cats-outdoors-in-1?fbclid=IwAR3rYO1g1Momi5qM-aIcVtYJ4EFw_K2w9wQJM9iHXaPnZ_xTWBjYCDhuvx0

  7. Dierschke, V. (2003). Predation hazard during migratory stopover: are light or heavy birds under risk? Journal of Avian Biology, 34(1), 24–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fischer, B. (2020). Keep your cats indoors: a reply to Abbate. Acta Analytica, 35(3), 463–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hall, C., Fontaine, J., Bryant, K., & Calver, M. (2015). Assessing the effectiveness of the Birdsbesafe® antipredation collar cover in reducing predation on wildlife by pet cats in Western Australia. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 173, 40–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Liberg, O. (1984). Food habits and prey impact by feral and house-based domestic cats in a rural area in southern Sweden. Journal of Mammalogy, 65(3), 424–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Møller, A., & Erritzøe, J. (2000). Predation against birds with low immuno competence. Oecologia, 122(4), 500–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California.

  13. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. (2016). Are Cats Causing Bird Declines? https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/gardening-for-wildlife/animal-deterrents/cats-and-garden-birds/are-catscausing-bird-declines/. Accessed 01 Jan 2019.

  14. Ruxton, G., Thomas, S., & Wright, J. (2002). Bells reduce predation by domestic cats (Felis catus). Journal of Zoology, 256(1), 81–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tantillo, J. (2006). Killing cats and killing birds: philosophical issues pertaining to feral cats. In Consultations in Feline Internal Medicine (pp. 701–708). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Willson, S., Okunlola, I., & Novak, J. (2015). Birds be safe: can a novel cat collar reduce avian mortality by domestic cats (Felis catus)? Global Ecology and Conservation, 3, 359–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Woods, M., McDonald, R., & Harris, S. (2003). Predation of wildlife by domestic cats Felix catus in Great Britain. Mammal Review, 33(2), 174–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cheryl Abbate.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abbate, C. Re-defending Feline Liberty: a Response to Fischer. Acta Anal 36, 451–463 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12136-020-00457-7

Download citation