Q: "I really need your opinion.  I read [on an alternative ferret list]
that domesticated pets are slaves.  How can this be true?"
 
A: Don't believe everything you read [on an alternative ferret list].
 
This is an old animal rights argument and, in many cases, I honestly
think it has some validity.  But I disagree that "owning" ferrets is the
same thing as slavery.  It shows severe ignorance of the concept of
domestication, presumes humans ARE somehow different from other animal
species, has no real understanding of predation, AND uses charged emotional
words to manipulate the feelings (not the intellect) of others.  To be a
slave, you are chattel; that is, you are the property of another (chattel
has origins in the same word root as cattle).  THIS is the argumentative
basis for insisting ferrets are slaves; by law they are property of the pet
owner.  You own the ferret, the ferret is property, property is chattel,
therefore, therefore, ferrets are slaves.
 
Well, if you are speaking of a factory pig destined to become bacon, the
argument might have some validity.  Obviously, a pig wouldn't volunteer to
fry it's ass to make BLTs unless it was a suicidal, in which case you have
to deal with the issue of mental competence.  In those instances where
animals become "tomatoes" in factory farms, I personally think the argument
has at least partial validity.  But I strongly disagree that pets are
slaves because domesticated relationships are symbiotic; BOTH sides benefit
greatly.  This precludes the idea of slavery.  Yes, legally, you can argue
ferrets are chattel and the inference of slavery can be made.  However,
slavery also implies a disproportionate benefit to the owner which is not
the case in ferrets.  Ferrets provide companionship, entertainment, and
physiological and psychological health benefits.  In return, they are
protected from predation, are well fed, and have their health care needs
met.  That is not a disproportionate relationship, but a benefit to both.
It CANNOT, therefore, be slavery.
 
Those who use the "animal slavery" argument consider slavery to be a
unique human institution (if at not by direct statement, then at least
by implication).  This is far from correct; lots of animals become the
"chattel" of other species.  To save space, I will just point out that
ants enslave other ants and aphids, and one could consider the nonbreeding
members of social groups, such as bees, ants, primates, lions, wolves and
molerats, to be the chattel of the breeding members.  Slavery, it was NOT,
in fact, invented by humans.  Also, if the argument that raising animals
for food qualifies them as slaves, then is eating wildlife ok?  Are prey
species slaves to predators?  The logical extension of this argument is
zebras and wildebeest would be slaves to lions.  Apparently, if PETA's
arguments are a guide, slavery exists only if the predator is human.
 
Animal activists ignore the simple fact that ALL LIFE EXISTS AT THE EXPENSE
OF OTHER LIFE.  I personally think it is speciesist to hold animals in
higher regard than plants.  Which is more important to save, the endangered
Florida panther or an endangered wildflower?  What is the moral difference
between eating animals and plants?  Brain power?  The ability to react?
Tell me any animal that lacks a brain can think.  Is it ok to eat insects
and worms because they lack a brain?  What about frogs?  Their brain can't
even tell them they are falling.  Can we eat them?  What about life forms
which do not belong to the animal or plant kingdoms?  What about yeast or
bacteria?  Is it wrong to enslave ferrets but ok to enslave yeast to make
bread?  Why?  NEITHER species has the ability to recognize they are slaves,
if, in fact, the concept of slavery is even applicable.
 
The problem is not one of "reality", but of "theory"; pet slavery is an
idea, a concept, a philosophy; not something tangible or substantive.  And
because it is an idea, it is wrong to impose it on other people against
their will (education is fine, but imposition of ideas is dictatorial).
The bottom line is we ALL have the right to decide for ourselves those
ideas we hold as true, even if they conflict with ideas from other people.
I am a serious animal advocate, but the tactics and activities employed by
PETA are immoral and demonstrate a lack of clarity in the issues.  Besides,
as anyone who owns ferrets knows, if anyone is a slave, it is the ferret
owner.
 
Bob C and 16 Mo' Superb Slaveowners
[Posted in FML issue 3056]