On the Morality of Dogs and Cats

I know this is a controversial topic. Still, I feel motivated enough to write up my rant. I can imagine a few scenarios in which I'd seek a feline or canine companion--living in solitude on a farm or ranch, living with a disability, to name two. In many other cases, however, keeping these animals as pets is immoral.

Let's start with dogs, man's best friend, worshiped in the west. One of the most asinine statements I've heard is "Dog is God backwards." First of all, this only applies in English. Italians don't call dogs Iod. That's silly. Second, it underscores the fanaticism that English speaking people may have for these animals. In the United States, one can easily find communities of people who would vocally oppose and threaten violence against another culture of people who consume canine flesh. Many of these folks, mind you, have no issue with consuming bovine flesh. Some would even ridicule Hindus for considering the cow to be a sacred animal, oblivious to the irony.

Tens of millennia reduced the noble wolf into a neutered companion engineered to satiate human vanity. A wolf is a large social mammal which can easily survive independently in the wild, separated from human communities. A dog can be large or it can be small, in which case it is entirely reliant on human intervention. In between are the feral dogs, the stray dogs, the street dogs, animals which feed on human waste and hospitality when available. Left to their own devices, these animals hunt and scavenge to fill their diets. They are quite capable of surviving on their own. If humans were to instantaneously disappear from the planet, many dogs would still survive. Evolution would quickly eliminate many of the smaller breeds, the inbred purebreds, the breeds with any unfavorable traits. The surviving breeds would find and occupy some niche in nature.

Cats and dogs are so ubiquitous because so many humans want pets. Whether these humans can properly care for these animals is another topic of debate. The proliferation of these pets has an unnatural impact on the ecosystem. They eliminate small animals like birds, lizards, and rodents. They compete with other predators and scavengers including foxes, wolves, coyotes, bobcats, mountain lions, and bears. All of these animals' populations suffered heavy losses after humans with dogs and cats settled into their territories.

More egregious is that fanaticism over pets can lead to hatred and violence against wild animals. When domesticated animals and wild animals compete for survival, the wild animals win in a fair fight. Unfortunately, humans ensure that this is not a fair fight by stripping the wild animal of territory and numbers, and by supporting the domesticated animal with bullets, poison, and traps. The hypocritical humans I mention above--who eat cows but threaten violence against anyone eating dogs--include those who have no problem with exterminating coyotes. They fail to understand that their dogs (and cats) are invasive species. Their "right to be here" is purely a human construct, whereas the wild animals' "right to be here" has been established over a much longer time period and through natural selection. Obviously, this problem has many solutions that involve separating domesticated animals from wild animals. What complicates them is that human expansion encroaches on the wild. How many mountain lions and coyotes need to die before people properly protect their pets?

Why do these animals have to rely on humans for evolutionary success? Simply, they were designed that way. Generations of breeding resulted in animals that have locked away their wild instincts. This is apparent in pigs, for feral pigs exhibit different traits from farm swine. Comparing intelligence between a dog and a wolf is no question. From that perspective, it seems inhumane that humans willfully stunted the potential of an animal for their own gain. The behavioral immaturity of a physically mature dog draws comparisons between dogs and small children. Some humans even opt for adopting a dog before they are ready to have human babies. This can be a dangerous line of reasoning, especially for the dog. Some humans prefer to keep pet dogs due to their loyalty. This is simply hardwired obedience following thousands of years of domestication. Therefore, keeping a dog is like enslaving a small child who cannot grow into maturity.

Cats are a little different because, being mostly solitary animals, they are much more independent and less obedient than dogs. Still, humans aid in their survival by removing predators and providing free food. Many cat owners sincerely believe, as dogs descend from wolves, their domesticated cats descend from panthers like lions and tigers. The truth is wildcats come in various shapes and sizes. That the domesticated cat bears close enough resemblance to small wildcats calls into question the extent to which they are domesticated. With instincts less stunted than those of dogs, cats notoriously eliminate small animals from communities as they act out on their hunting instincts. The result is, to a greater extent than dogs, cats wipe species off the map. Their expression of predatory instinct draws fondness from oblivious human owners.

To emphasize once more, there are circumstances in which dogs and cats can provide benefits. The best of these cases respect the animals' autonomy and the natural balance between predator and prey. Cats can keep rats at bay, and dogs can protect chickens. The key here is balance. These pets' success as animals violates the natural order, achievable only through alliance with humans. The responsible, moral course of action is to abstain from keeping pets unless necessary. For most humans, keeping pets is not necessary but appeases the ego.