Response to Todd, Again

Todd Asked: Is animal ownership the key to ending animal cruelty?

While it is certainly an interesting question, one that I will surely get to, I want to address your post itself first.

You make the distinction between the careful, caring ownership of animals and the careful, caring ownership of humans. You identify this difference as slavery is a subjection of a human soul. It would seem, then, that your argument for the ownership of animals being any different rests on the premise that humans have souls. While I am not purporting to know one way or another (though I happen to think that we do not) I am uncomfortable with a morality that rests upon a theological doctrine.

Now, to your question:

I would think, rather intuitively, that no, there needs to be more than animal ownership to end animal cruelty. At the risk of being too simple, ownership does not denote any obligation of treatment. People may be as cruel as they want to the things that they own. Indeed, considering animals to be owned may even further the notion of cruelty as it would imply that the owner may do whatever he or she wishes.

I think the animal guardian is a good step to ending animal cruelty, but not the animal owner.

Question: Does calling animals property propagate the propensity to abuse animals?