Follow-up commentary on: Can vegans own pets?
I wanted to take the opportunity to clarify slightly my dilemma in my previous post. A few people have made comments following my post cautioning me not to equate morality of humans with that of other animals (e.g., cats). I am surprised by this warning as I did not believe that my post revealed any indication that I was ignorant of this. Indeed, I am well aware of the moral differences between humans eating animals and other animals eating animals, and I would certainly never apply identical moral argumentation to both scenarios.
I would like to emphasize a particular element of my dilemma that I still do not have an answer for. I was recommended a podcast by Gary Francione in which it was alleged that he answers my questions concerning this dilemma. Gary makes some extremely insightful points on what vegan cat owners should do on the assumption that certain cats cannot follow vegan diets and remain healthy. (Note that this is an assumption he makes because he admits he is not a veterinarian or similar and so cannot claim that this is true or not.) However, he also makes the assumption that this question is being asked by vegans who presently own cats. Still I am left in doubt about those vegans who are interested in adopting cats but do not have one yet. This is a very important distinction.
Indeed, the podcast helped me to frame my question more precisely, by referring to “pet ownership” as an “immoral institution”, which I can relate to. It is assumed, therefore, that vegans who already participate in this “immoral institution” have an obligation to their animals to continue participating in it. For example, vegans have the obligation to engage in “morally excusable” acts such as feeding their cats meat in order to ensure that they do not suffer. This makes perfect sense and I was not questioning this per se in my previous post. But I wonder: does one opt in good moral consciousness to participate in this “immoral institution” if one has the choice not to (i.e., if one is not already participating)? In other words, what should non cat owners do? Should they adopt cats in the hope that the cats can follow a vegan diet and if they can’t, then (since they are now cat owners) they must start buying meat (as identified by Gary as the “morally excusable” act)? Again, Gary believes that it is not inherently wrong to feed a carnivorous domesticated animal a vegan diet if they prosper only on it. That I do not deny. But should we participate in this “immoral institution” called “pet ownership” if we have the option not to? Is it “morally excusable” to adopt a cat and take the risk that it will not be able to eat a vegan diet?
As previously mentioned, Gary says that it is “morally excusable” to feed cats meat if there is no other alternative. This implies that he believes it is better to feed and care for the cat than to euthanize it in order not to contribute to the meat industry. I can accept that, too. But I still am without the answer to my question in my previous post: Can vegans adopt cats? Sure, vegans can own pets, but should they adopt if they don’t already own?
I am also aware that I should not broadly apply my morality for animals on my morality for meat or animal products directly. However, this must be taken with a grain of salt. Non-vegetarians can and do make the “category” argument when they eat meat, e.g., “It’s already dead by the time it makes it to my plate!” (I.e., “It’s not my ethical dilemma, it was someone else’s”). The same can be true for cat food. If one feels justified housing a bunch of cats by believing that the meat that one feeds the cats is just an animal product that is already dead, then I’m not going to argue, but to my mind, I do not believe it is categorically appropriate to make the distinction. Perhaps I’m in error to try to work out exactly how many animals need to die so that my cat can live out his/her life, and then from that try to determine whether it is more morally excusable to euthanize the animal than to feed it meat. Perhaps it’s a timing issue with respect to at what point we can safely say that we have no control or persuasion on an animal’s suffering. It is more apparent and direct to see your own cat harmed by your dogmatic beliefs than it would be to only *assume* a farm animal suffers from you compromising those very beliefs. That may be enough for most people to see this as a black and white decision. Unfortunately, it isn’t quite so for me.
Finally, I’m a bit surprised that I must also explain and clarify my stance on my veganism, but alas, I do have to from time to time. I’m not inherently against killing. That is not what you should have taken away from my last post. I do not believe all carnivorous animals should be killed or euthanized for “the greater vegan cause”. That is ludicrous and a straw man. However, I do think that if domesticated animals were to exist no longer, this wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. The same applies to domesticated farm animals, but for different reasons. My “life equals a life” reasoning that I alluded to in my previous post could be likened to the classical moral dilemma of choosing between saving drowning animals. Say four cows and a cat are drowning in a lake. You have the opportunity to save the four cows or to save the cat. Which do you save? This eliminates the timing issue I referred to above. I do not apply or compare this hypothetical dilemma to natural environments or the food chain. We are talking about owning pets, not disapproving of eating meat across the animal kingdom.
I do not believe I made a category error in my previous post. Agree? Disagree? I’d love to hear your comments!