Response to Shelby

Shelby wonders if we can use animals without abusing them...so do I, so here's my response.

I generally have a problem with the attitude that animals can be used because to me that perpetuates the attitude that animals are things rather than beings. That said, if we had never used animals in the first place our society would never have advanced in the way that it has. The use of animals in agriculture directly resulted to the growth of civilizations out of hunter-gatherer societies. I think at the very least we owe animals a great deal of respect, since we wouldn't be where we are today without their help.

Perhaps we should try to move toward the mindset that animals are usable persons and not objects that we control. If you think about it, even people are used. If nobody was made to do anything nothing would ever get done. Of course it's different with people because, for the most part, we have a choice in what we do or don't do. Even though we have more free will than animals, we do not have complete freedom of choice. If I did just what I wanted to do and nothing else I'd be at home laying on my couch reading for the rest of my life. I can consent to doing work, but that does not mean that I want to do it or even that it is always in my best interest. To answer the question, I do think that we can use animals without abusing them so long as we do not force them to do things that harm their well being and realize that they are living beings, not machines that can be treated without kindness. Gentle treatment of animals will go a long way as opposed to just having no useful relationship with animals for fear of violating their free will.

I'm now wondering how much weight we should give to an animal's preferences. Do we avoid certain practices such as using horses for carriage rides in the city because we can infer that they would rather be running in an open field somewhere or do we simply avoid practices of animal usage that clearly cause the animal unnecessary discomfort or harm?