The Case Against Pets: Analysis

722 Words3 Pages
Animals have always played a pivotal role in societies throughout the past. Some communities praise animals, while others use them as a symbol of wealth, and some sectors own animals merely as companions. Throughout the article “The Case Against Pets” Francione and Charlton (2015) argue that animals must not be property, and consequently need to gain basic animal rights. As law professors at Rutgers University, and publishers of a book about animal rights, the author’s viewpoints and research are held credible. Nevertheless, despite their arguments being supported by validated and reliable evidence, both authors are biased towards their viewpoints.

Initially, the authors argue that the domestication of animals must be prohibited as it violates the basic rights of animals and raises moral questions. One right that animals must obtain is the right not to be property. When animals are a property they are mistreated and not protected. Despite the laws that governments such as the US and UK established towards animals, they only seem to be effective when a conflict arises between the owner and the animal. Furthermore, the author’s compare the treatment of human slaves to animals, to highlight the lack of rights animals have. Hence, in order to protect the interests of animals, individuals must first begin by providing animals with the minimal needs (water, food and shelter). However, such needs require a reasonable amount of money. Overall, the authors claim that as humans we
Open Document