THESIS THE OTHERING OF PETS: PALMER, PLUMWOOD, AND PET TECHNOLOGY ETHICS Submitted by Marielle Forrest Department of Philosophy In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Master of Arts Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Summer 2019 Master’s Committee: Advisor: Katie McShane Kenneth Shockley Temple Grandin Copyright by Marielle Forrest 2019 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT THE OTHERING OF PETS: PALMER, PLUMWOOD, AND PET TECHNOLOGY ETHICS In Chapter 1, I will explore some of the central theories in the field of animal ethics, those by: Peter Singer, Tom Regan, Martha Nussbaum, and Clare Palmer. I will also examine the views of Stephen Budiansky and Gary Francione in conversation with one another to consider the wrongfulness of domestication. In Chapter 2, I will provide a brief historical account of pet-keeping. I will then look at our current practices of keeping pets and in what ways these practices are or can be harmful. Finally, I will argue that there are more subtle ways that we indirectly harm our pets, that is, through ‘othering attitudes’ (of polarization, homogenization, backgrounding, assimilation, and instrumentalism). These attitudes can invite harm to our pets, particularly in light of their social needs. In Chapter 3, I will consider seven animal-computer interactions (ACI) and see in what ways our pets can benefit from or be harmed by them. I will argue that these technologies reinforce, rather than eliminate, attitudes of othering and can, in this way, be harmful. Still, with moderation, a loving eye, and a spirit of “critical anthropomorphism,” we can use ACI responsibly. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you: To my advisor, Katie McShane. This thesis and myself are indebted to you for your time, all of your insight, guidance, and for tempering my claims. To my committee members, Ken Shockley and Temple Grandin, for their time and assistance. To Patrick, who I was incredibly rude to as I worked to finish this. To Pumpkin and Sam, for bringing meaning and immeasurable happiness. iii DEDICATION For Pumpkin, and Sam iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………………………………ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………………………………………...iii DEDICATION………………………………………………………………………………...….…………………...iv INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………..1 1: APPROACHES TO ANIMAL ETHICS…………………………………………………………………………3 1.1 Peter Singer………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 1.2 Tom Regan…………………………………………………………………………………………………………7 1.3 Martha Nussbaum………………………………………………………………………………………………...13 1.4 Clare Palmer……………………………………………………………………………………………………...20 1.5 Francione, Budiansky, and Domestication.………………………………………………………………………26 2: OUR PRACTICE OF KEEPING PETS………………………………………………………………………...33 2.1 History of Pet-keeping.……………………………………………………………...............................................33 2.1.1 A Conceptual Shift……………………………………………………………………………………34 2.1.2 Tools for Hunting……………………………………………………………………………………..36 2.1.3 Declining Family Structure…………………………………………………………... ……………....37 2.1.4 Dogs and Cats: Our Preferred Companions…………………………………………………………...38 2.1.5 The Benefits Dogs and Cats Confer…………………………………………………………………..39 2.2 Welfare Issues of Pets…………………………………………………………...…………………...…………...42 2.2.1 Feline Onychectomy………………………………………………………………………. …………42 2.2.2 Selective Breeding………………………………………………………………………..……..…….43 2.2.3 Animal Cruelty……………………………………………………………………….....……....…….44 2.2.4 Institutionalized Animal Cruelty…………………………………………………………….......……45 2.2.5 Unintentional Harms…………………………………………………………………........………….46 2.3 Is it Wrong to Keep Pets? ………………………………………………………………………..………………47 2.3.1 Animals as Property…………………………………………………………………………………...47 2.3.2 The Welfarist View …………………………………………………………………….………….….50 2.3.3 Bok’s Welfarist View ……………………………………………………………………………..….51 2.3.4 DeGrazia’s Welfarist View ……………………………………………………………..…………….52 2.3.5 Francione and Dependency ………………………………………………………………………..….54 2.4 Attitudes of Othering……………………………………………………………………………..……………….57 2.4.1 Polarization …………………………………………………………………………………….……. 59 2.4.2 Homogenization ………………………………………………………………………………….…...63 2.4.3 Backgrounding ………………………………………………………………………………………..64 2.4.4 Assimilation ……………………………………………………………………………………….….65 2.4.5 Instrumentalism ………………………………………………………………………………..……..67 2.5 Misunderstanding as Indirect Harm……………………………………………………………………………...69 2.5.1 The Social Needs of Pets ……………………………………………………………………………..69 2.5.2 The Social Needs of Dogs ……………………………………………………………………………70 2.5.3 The Social Needs of Dogs: Physical vs Virtual………………………………………………………72 2.5.4 The Social Needs of Cats ……………………………………………………………………………..74 2.5.5 The Risk of Social Neglect ………………………………………………………………………...…77 2.5.6 Combatting the Risk of Social Neglect ………………………………………………………………78 3: PET TECHNOLOGIES………………………………………………………………………………………….81 3.1 The Hub…………………………………………………………………………….…………………………….82 3.2 The Wickedbone…………………………………………………………………………….…………………….87 3.3 FitBark 2………………………………………………………………………………….………………………90 3.4 Automatic Pet Feeders……………………………………………………………………………………………94 3.5 Furbo Dog Camera……………………………………………………………………………………………….97 3.6 DogSpot………………………………………………………………………………….………………………101 3.7 Odor and Sound Training Collars………………………………………………………….…………………...103 3.8 Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………………………….108 CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………….…………………..115 v BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………….………………..116 vi INTRODUCTION We adopted Pumpkin from a shelter outside of Cleveland, Ohio in October of 2002. She was one and a half years old and not orange. In truth we intended on getting a dog that day but we happened to walk through the room that housed the cats, where Pumpkin climbed onto my mom’s back. We took her home. Soon after, my mom had Pumpkin declawed (my mom collects antiques and, understandably, did not want Pumpkin to tear up the furniture). I wound up taking Pumpkin with me, years later, when I moved out of my mom’s house and, again, when I moved out West. Here in Fort Collins, I take Pumpkin to the vet. I fret and hurriedly tell them that she was a family cat, she’s declawed but that wasn’t me, I’m embarrassed and don’t want them to think anything. But, of course, I shouldn’t be. Declawing is a morally ambiguous thing. In some countries it is illegal, but in ours it is not. It takes some looking into or at least some mulling over to see that this surgery might be harmful. And, as Francione puts it, what is common or custom is often exempted from scrutiny1 – so of declawing, one does not think to look into or mull over. My mom feels bad about it now. I tell her that she shouldn’t. We do things that, at the time, did not seem out of the ordinary. It is this – the ordinary – that is at the heart of my argument. It is, sometimes, or most of the time, maybe, the ordinary things we do that run counter to our pets’ interests. The very nature of the ordinary, unfortunately, is her tendency to reside ‘in plain sight,’ as it were, so that we do not notice her. * In Chapter 1, I will explore the field of animal ethics and examine the wrongfulness of domestication. Of one mode of domestication – pet-keeping – it is particularly challenging to prove wrong. But we do not need to conclude that pet-keeping is wrong in order to consider obligations that arise from it. Clare Palmer asserts that we have duties to not harm and to assist domesticated animals, in virtue of their dependence, vulnerability, and our causal relations with them. I will explore what these duties look like in the context of pet-keeping. I will argue that while pet-keeping generates obligations, the extent of these obligations will be shaped by the role that one plays in the institution of pet-keeping. In Chapter 2, I will provide a brief historical account of pet-keeping. I will then look at our current practices of keeping pets and in what ways these practices are or can be harmful. Finally, I will argue that there are more 1 Gary Francione, Animals as Persons, (New York, Columbia University Press, 2008). subtle ways that we indirectly harm our pets, that is, through what Val Plumwood calls ‘othering attitudes’ (of polarization, homogenization, backgrounding, assimilation, and instrumentalism). These attitudes can invite harm to our pets, particularly in light of their social needs. I will argue that in virtue of these less obvious harms we have less obvious obligations to our pets; I will argue that Palmer’s duties of non-harm and assistance require that we work to eliminate Plumwood’s attitudes of othering. In Chapter 3, I will consider seven animal-computer interactions (ACI) and see in what ways our pets can benefit from or be harmed by them. I will argue that these technologies reinforce, rather than eliminate, attitudes of othering and can, in this way, be harmful. Still, with moderation, a loving eye, and a spirit of “critical anthropomorphism,” we can use ACI responsibly. That is, we can use ACI while upholding our duties to pets. Throughout my thesis, I will constrain my discussion in the following senses: my focus will be not all pets but dogs and cats specifically. To be sure, in some regions of the world, dogs and cats are not kept as pets, and there is no reason that the conversation must be restricted in this way. We could just as well include the obligations that arise in keeping pet birds or reptiles, as there are a number of welfare issues that arise here, too. But it will prove helpful to narrow my focus. This way, I will better be able to consider pet technologies (technologies