Pets are merely the prisoners of our "affection"—we're fucking selfish, innit?

Okay, take a deep breath.

Breathe in. Breathe out. Breathe in. Breathe out.

Feeling better? I sure hope so—we’re in for a doozie!

Okay, now, let’s delve into the topic at hand. On first glance, the topic, or rather, my statement, might seem completely bonkers and off the rails. I understand that. I’ve been ridiculed in the past when I’ve mentioned this in conversations.

“How dare you say that!! I love my dog. I rescued it…he loves me…I love him…”

Yeah, yeah. I understand that, and honestly, I couldn’t care less. You’re still a selfish piece of shit.

Actually, you know what—let’s divert from the main topic for a tad bit, shall we? Don’t worry, don’t worry—we’ll get right back at it when you’ve started to look at the topic, with let’s say, more of a third-person point of view, little grasshopper.

I’d like you to answer this question, that is, if you’ve had a pet in the past, or currently—Why did you adopt a pet in the first place?

Most answers would be along the lines of adopting a pet because the person wanted some satisfaction, or utility—”happiness”, as people usually say. Whose happiness, their’s, or their pets’? Their’s, obviously.

Note: We’ll be using the above-provided definition of the word “happiness”. It’s a very subjective word, but we need to limit the scope in order to have a fruitful discussion.

This is the basis of my argument. I sort of arrived at this point after analyzing my own desire to have a pet—I always wanted a Golden Retriever—the quintessential cute-sy fairytale types—(floofy) majestic hair, and so on.

Why did I want that? Well, because I found it “cute(-sy)”

For me, the desire to have a pet stemmed from a very selfish place—MY desire to have a cute “showpiece”. An animate “toy”. Someone to cheer me up when I come home from school. Someone to lick my tears when I’m crying.

The tragedy, according to me, is, the fact that animals do not really have a right, or say in the matter of whether they want to be adopted or not. Nor do they have any freedom.

Think about it. Honestly, I mean it.

Did you ask for your pet’s permission when you wanted to adopt them? Perhaps they showed some fuzziness towards you when you first saw them, and you probably took that as a sign that this particular pet likes me, as if that was their implied consent to be adopted.

Although, yes, yes, I hear you. You might treat your pet like a king, or queen. But, that’s not the point.

A prisoner can also be treated like a king, or queen, by virtue of superficial metrics like the quality of food they’re being fed, or how much a person might have spent on them.

But, the crux of the matter is, without freedom, aren’t they still prisoners?

Their life is subject to YOUR whims and fancies. Isn’t it?

Merriam-webster defines the word “Prisoner” as the following: “one that has been taken and held in confinement.” While the word “Confinement” further suggests a state of being “confined”, which, inturn means the following: “limited to a particular location” or “held captive”.

Stranger, tell me, when you adopt a pet (against their will), don’t you bring them to your home, and well, force them to stay there? Does that sound familiar?

Ahh, yes, it certainly does. To rephrase, aren’t pets “held captive”, or “limited to a particular location”, forcefully, against their will, for their entire life?

Yes, you take them out to walk, perhaps even on trips—beaches, mountains, resorts. But, at the end of the day, everything is still done on YOUR whims and fancies, isn’t it?

Just because society has normalized, accepted, and depicted quite favorably, and I’d argue, romanticized (owning) pets, it doesn’t make my argument invalid.

We treat pets as inferiors—dumber than humans, weaker than humans, and whatnot, We tie them up with leashes, harnesses, and whatnot.

Just close your eyes, and imagine.

Imagine you’re a toddler. You’ve just been brought into this world. You’re the epitome of innocence, the purest soul, filled with nothing but love. Now imagine a giant unknown creature comes in, and takes you away from your home, and everything dear to you. This creature touches (”pets”) you, feeds you god-knows-what, and expects you to be a performer in their circus. How would you feel?

Let me make one thing very clear. I’m not here to guilt-trip you. Nor am I claiming that adopting pets is wrong. Rather, I’m just here to provide a different perspective.

“My dog loves me. How dare you call him a prisoner!”

Yes, Karen, shut up.

Have y’all heard of a term which goes by the name of ‘Stockholm Syndrome’? If not, that’s fine, don’t worry. So basically, Stockholm syndrome is defined as “the situation when a person who has been taken prisoner starts to like or trust the person or people who have taken them.”

If we make a minor modification to the definition, and replace the word “person” to a broader term, let’s say, “entity”, then even the situation that entails with pets would fall under this, won’t it?

Rebuttals & Case Studies

I surfed the interwebs regarding this topic, and found some fascinating, and expected rebuttals to this question. I’ll try my best to answer as many as possible—I’m sure quite a few of y’all would also have the same doubts.

Note: There is no objective answer to a question as complex as this, especially one rooted in the complexities of ethics, and philosophy.

Rebuttal-1

“Do prisoners greet you at the door excitedly when you get home? Do prisoners cuddle with you and look for love?…I think he’s genuinely grateful I saved him from being euthanized for overcrowding and being in a cage waiting for adoption…my pets are far from prisoners…they are my family members… and they are spoiled rotten. I mean what better life could they have? All vet bills paid for, roof over their head, comfy bed to sleep in (all day!), yummy food twice a day, fresh water, toys to play with, and LOVE. The only ‘work’ they ever have to do is catching mice sometimes and they LOVE doing that. Plus our cats get let out on our enclosed porch and then CRY to get back in! On the couple times they got out, they run back home! They are loyal to a default. I wouldn’t call that being a prisoner…”

Fabulous points, although, there is one major logical flaw in the argument presented. We were not discussing whether adoption is “good” or “bad”, or whether your pets are taken care of—”pampered”—”spoiled rotten”. Rather, the point we were discussing was whether they are prisoners to their “owners” or not, and that they are—there was no point presented in the argument that rebutted that. The pet’s freedom, or lack thereof, is in the hands of the humans in-charge.

Our “affection” for our pets is not, and cannot be, a valid justification for their imprisonment (our control over them). Our “affection” cannot give us the right to control their lives indefinitely (or at least till they die)—where they live, what they eat, when they are allowed to go for a walk, or hell, even whether they reproduce or not.

Who the fuck gave us the right to neuter our pets. Like dude, what the flying fuck?

I think a better way to understand the logical flaw in the argument presented would be to have a look at the following image. Try to guess what this image is of.

“Halden Prison, located in Norway, is often dubbed the "world’s most humane prison." It’s designed to resemble a college campus rather than a traditional jail. The cells here are more like cosy dorm rooms, featuring flat-screen TVs, mini-fridges, and large windows that let in plenty of natural light. Inmates have access to a wide range of activities, including a music studio, a library, and even a gym where they can work out.”

Credits: Pulse.ng

Yes, you saw correctly. Those are, infact, “prisons”, where “prisoners” are kept, duh.

Don’t these prisoners seem like they’re “spoiled rotten” and “pampered” as well?