Many people wonder about how they many reduce their carbon footprint and help lessen the effects of climate change. A particularly controversial suggestion is reported by Kate Ravilious in her recent New Scientist article “How green is your pet?” (23 October 2009). Ravilious references a new book by the environmentalists Robert and Brenda Vance entitled Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living”. The couple’s calculations show that the carbon footprint of the family dog or cat exceeds that of many vehicles. If we wish to reduce our household’s impact on the environment, the most effective way to do so is to stop raising pets. Naturally, this argument offends many people, and to better understand why, we should explore the ethics of pets and climate change.
The initial issue is whether or not pets count morally or not. Those with an anthropocentric viewpoint argue that humans are the only beings with intrinsic value, and that ethical choices are those that benefit the most humans. On the other hand, there are many that believe animals such as pets to possess intrinsic value. Therefore, when discussing issues such as climate change, animals and humans should be given the same moral weight. It is under this viewpoint that the controversy arises: if animals and humans matter equally, then the Vance’s book may as well be titled Eat the Child. Determining one’s position on who or what matters morally – referred to as the demarcation problem – is the crucial first step for assessing ethical issues.
For simplicity’s sake, the rest of this analysis will focus on the animal rights view. Within this viewpoint two general forms of ethical reasoning exist: consequentialist and non-consequentialist. Non-consequentialists, or deontologists, take a “rights” approach to ethical issues. They hold that the most ethical choice is that which respects the rights of the most individuals. A deontologist would feel that the elimination of pets is a violation of the animals’ right to life and happiness, and is not an ethically sound option. Rather, pets and humans should be given equal consideration when discussing solutions to the problem of environmental impact. Since the eradication of either species is unacceptable, a more humane solution to the problem of reducing our environmental impact must be found.
The counterpoint to the non-consequentialist deontological view is the consequentialist, or utilitarian, view. Utilitarians believe that the ethically correct choice is that which results in the greatest aggregate happiness. Under this definition, it is apparent that utilitarians would generally support the Vance’s argument. Although the rights of pets will be violated by their elimination, a world without pets will be a world less affected by climate change, and thus a happier world overall. In this way, the end justifies the means, and so, for the good of the entire biosphere, the elimination of pets should be sought after.
The study of ethics is a difficult and often confusing endeavour, and environmental ethics especially so. The suggestions put forward by Robert and Brenda Vance and reported by Kate Ravilious remain very controversial among environmentalists, pet owners, and animal activists. The purpose of this brief analysis has been to help explain why there is such disagreement over ethical issues, and demonstrate that there are often a multitude of solutions to each philosophical and environmental problem, none more legitimate than any other. This variety of opinion can be overwhelming, but there is one crucial concept that must be remembered: for a philosophy to be valid, it must be consistent.
REFERENCES
Ravilious, Kate. "How green is your pet?" New Scientist. 23 October 2009.>www.newscientist.com/.../mg20427311.600-how-green-is-your-pet.html<. Accessed 1 November 2009.
I would have never assumed that pets have a larger carbon footprint than cars considering cars directly release emissions.
ReplyDelete