CNN's Jack Cafferty has reported that city officials in San Francisco are considering a ban on the sale of pets within city borders. The idea has been pitched as a way to discourage puppy mills and to rein in the impulse purchases of pets. It should surprise no one that conservatives are outraged because they view the issue through the narrow lenses of human civil rights and property rights.
Personally, despite the proposal's obvious shortcomings, I would favor a ban on the selling of domesticated animals the world over. In most of the world, humankind has banned the concept of selling human children and adults. So, why allow other creatures to be bought and sold?
As Lao Tzu writes in several verses of the Tao Te Ching, the manifestations of "the mystery" called life -- the proverbial 10,000 things -- each originate from the same source. In essence, we share an essential kinship with all other beings. So, how is it possible to possess another creature as property?
When a person claims that they own an animal -- a domesticated "pet" or some other type of creature -- what is it that they truly own? A human may be able to restrict the movements of the animal in question and a person may accept legal responsibility for the actions of the animal, but we don't possess its internal essence, nature or soul.
In fact, it could be argued that we also don't even possess our own internal essence, nature or soul. Our bodies, brains and the unique aspects of what we call the self may be nothing more than illusions. The concept of ownership means having ultimate control and none of us even controls our own birth and death. So, if we don't really possess ownership of our "selves," how can we think we can own any other being?
Personally, despite the proposal's obvious shortcomings, I would favor a ban on the selling of domesticated animals the world over. In most of the world, humankind has banned the concept of selling human children and adults. So, why allow other creatures to be bought and sold?
As Lao Tzu writes in several verses of the Tao Te Ching, the manifestations of "the mystery" called life -- the proverbial 10,000 things -- each originate from the same source. In essence, we share an essential kinship with all other beings. So, how is it possible to possess another creature as property?
When a person claims that they own an animal -- a domesticated "pet" or some other type of creature -- what is it that they truly own? A human may be able to restrict the movements of the animal in question and a person may accept legal responsibility for the actions of the animal, but we don't possess its internal essence, nature or soul.
In fact, it could be argued that we also don't even possess our own internal essence, nature or soul. Our bodies, brains and the unique aspects of what we call the self may be nothing more than illusions. The concept of ownership means having ultimate control and none of us even controls our own birth and death. So, if we don't really possess ownership of our "selves," how can we think we can own any other being?
Why limit it to domesticated animals by that definition? Isn't a companion animal actually being treated with more respect than livestock?
ReplyDeleteMost shelters charge for pets to cover the costs they put into the animal - medical care and spay/neutering first and foremost. While I think cutting down on puppy mills and the like is a laudable goal, I don't know whether it's reasonable to expect shelters to exist on donations alone.