“If there are no dogs in heaven, I want to go where they go”, said the American performer, Will Rogers.

It is no secret that we are deeply connected to the animals we keep as pets. In Australia, most pet owners would like to think they treat their animals well. 52% of Australians consider their pets to be family members, and in 2021 Australians spent $30.7 billion on food, healthcare, and enrichment for their cats and dogs.  

Studying animal ethics, I used to believe that pet ownership was a good thing. Following the arguments of moral philosopher Christine Korsgaard and many others, I saw it as a mutually beneficial situation. We provide our animals with the necessary conditions for a good life, such as food, shelter, healthcare, love and attention. In return, they provide us with companionship and countless other life-affirming benefits.  

As long as we can provide our pets with the kind of life that is good for them, then having pets is a good thing, I reasoned. After all, how could I deny that my family’s Golden Retriever, Ruby, lived a charmed life full of play, food, and affection? As I would soon find out, the ethics of pet-keeping is far more complicated than ensuring our furry friends are ‘well taken care of’.   

My view about pets was turned upside down after listening to a podcast with legal scholar and animal ethicist Gary Francione. Francione is an abolitionist, meaning that he believes that we should abolish all use and ownership of nonhuman animals, including pets. To understand this view, it is first important to understand the history of domesticated animals and pets. 

Domesticated animals are those animals like dogs, cats, or sheep who have adapted or ‘tamed’ because of or by humans. While the jury is still out on how wolves initially interacted with humans to become dogs, humans have subsequently spent millennia forcibly breeding dogs to make them less aggressive, ‘cuter’, or specialised in some activity like cattle herding. Or, in the case of my family’s Golden Retriever, Ruby, it seems she has been bred to chew up sofas and love carrots (don’t ask). 

As Francione puts it, we have domesticated dogs and cats into a state of perpetual childhood where they are dependent on us for basic care. Yet, unlike children, cats and dogs don’t grow up and become independent; they remain in a state of dependency for their entire lives.   

The animals we keep as pets are a subset of domesticated animals. The concept of pet ownership in Western countries is surprisingly recent, beginning in the Victorian era. Our entitlement to owning pets has not existed throughout history, meaning we should be critical of current ethical attitudes towards pets. 

For abolitionists like Francione, the problem of pet ownership is twofold. One, the state of dependency is problematic because we have bred animals to become dependent on us. Imagine if someone raised their child to be completely dependent on them and to never reach true adulthood; we would likely call it emotional abuse. Yet in the case of pets, it is considered ‘proper training’.  

Second is the problem of ownership and possession.  Animals (including pets) are treated as property in the law. It’s even in the name: ‘pet ownership’. Most of us know that animals are sentient, and perhaps even that they are individuals with rights. However, if this was truly the case, then it would be nonsensical that an animal could be ‘owned’ as property in the same way it is morally outrageous for a human to be owned.  

For these two reasons, abolitionists like Francione think that if we could wave a magic wand, we should remove all domesticated animals like cats and dogs who depend on us from existence. While we should adopt and care for the current animals that are already alive, we should also aim to abolish the institution of owning pets.  

The abolitionist position is confronting and uncomfortable. I love my dog Ruby, and I was initially defensive against Francione’s argument. Has my family really been doing something wrong by pouring hours of our lives and thousands of our (my parents’) dollars into caring for a dog who we treat as a member of a family? Even if we have not personally been doing anything wrong, the world without cats and dogs that Francione envisages seems like a slightly less happy world. 

I was struggling with this dilemma when my partner and I met a cat at a guesthouse in Malaysia’s Cameron Highlands, curled up in a box in the corner of the reception. When we asked the guesthouse owners what his name was, they said that he didn’t have a name yet because he only arrived three weeks earlier.  

He, the cat, had picked them. In return for his company, the guesthouse owners gave him as much kibble as he would like and took him to the vet. On the same trip, I also learned that in Türkiye, many people have a ‘tab’ at the vet they use for vagabond cats who choose to live with them. This framework of domesticated animals without ‘owners’ is what I call the ‘free roaming’ model, an idea tentatively welcomed by animal studies scholar Claudia Hirtenfelder that, as Eva Meijer argues, acknowledges the agency of nonhuman animals.  

Perhaps a more familiar example of a free-roaming animal is the life of the eponymous dog from the beloved Australian film, Red Dog. In the film, Red Dog is no one’s pet. Rather, he is cared for by the employees of a mine in Western Australia’s Pilbara and eventually decides to live with an American man named John Grant. Red Dog has agency, and [spoiler alert] uses that agency to travel across Australia in search of John after his premature death.  

The key difference between free-roaming domesticated animals and pets is that these animals are not owned. Yes, many free-roaming cats and dogs may still depend on some human care, but they have a choice in how and from whom they receive that care.  

The free-roaming model is not perfect, however. According to the Humane Society, 25% of outdoor (commonly referred to as ‘feral’) kittens do not survive past 6 months. This is not the case for kittens bred in captivity. And while some cats are lucky, like the one we met in Malaysia, many endure lives of illness and famine. And, as Korsgaard points out, domesticated cats are a predatorial threat to native wildlife, which is why, for example, they are not allowed outside without a leash in the Australian Capital Territory.  

For the free-roaming model of animal companionship to work, we would have to make our urban spaces more hospitable to other animals. There would have to be a significant attitude shift in our tolerance of animals in public spaces where we usually don’t see them.  

Until that day, perhaps the best thing we can do is adopt pets from shelters like the RSPCA, rather than breeders who perpetuate the institution of animal dependency and pet ownership. However, the free-roaming model gives hope for a post-pet world. As Korsgaard puts it: 

“There is something about the naked, unfiltered joy that animals take in little things—a food treat, an uninhibited romp, a patch of sunlight, a belly rub from a friendly human—that reawakens our sense of the all-important thing that we share with them: the sheer joy and terror of conscious existence.” 

This article won the 2024 Young Writers’ Competition 18-29 category. 

Whether it’s helping out a neighbour in need, assisting a stranger living rough on the streets or being asked at the checkout to donate $2 to charity, we are all, at some point, involved in the action of giving.  

The giving of service. The giving of time. The giving of money. We often find ourselves giving from a place of good intention, but not fully understanding the consequences of our actions.  

Away from home, when travelling in a developing country, it’s especially difficult to ignore the begging children on the streets, families living in overcrowded homes and poverty, the absence of healthcare and the poor state of schools.  

In 2006, Australian philanthropist Tara Winkler witnessed the distressing realities of children living in poverty whilst visiting a Cambodian orphanage. She was so moved that she returned a year later with money she had fundraised, ready to work hard to improve the children’s quality of life. During her time as a volunteer, she discovered that the orphanage’s director was abusive and misappropriating donations, an occurrence not unheard of in the industry. Winkler also learnt that most ‘orphans’ still had their families but were living in these institutions to escape the poverty cycle.  

Attempting to save these children, Winkler established her own orphanage in 2007, only to realise it was further fueling Cambodia’s widespread misuse and exploitation of orphanages, causing harm to children and separating families. She has since developed the Cambodia Children’s Trust, an organisation that aims to address root causes of poverty and family unit breakdown through social work and locally based initiatives involving education and healthcare, providing sustainable and positive futures for at-risk communities.  

By spotlighting this story, I am not aiming to discourage the act of giving but rather to motivate individuals to have a more considered approach on how we give and to whom. As highlighted in philosopher Peter Singer’s book, The Life You Can Save, ‘perhaps those who do not research think that it will be too difficult to find out what charities offer better value, so they may as well give to whatever charity last caught their eye’. This is reflected in Australia’s Giving Report from 2019, when it was recorded that 41% of Australians would donate more money in the next 12 months if they better understood where their money would be spent, whilst 23% hoped for more transparency about the cause and its regulations.  

So, how can we shift these figures and guide people toward more impactful giving choices?  

Let’s take a look at UNICEF. According to their Donate Where Need is Greatest appeal, of each dollar donated, 80 cents is specifically directed towards helping vulnerable children, 14 cents to essential fundraising costs and six cents to administration.  

Given these figures alone, it’s difficult to assess the lasting impression of this particular campaign, so we have to look further. We discover their main goal is to break the vicious cycle of poverty by providing small initiatives that will have beneficial, long-term effects. A donation of 84 dollars equates to 84,000L of clean drinking water made accessible to some of the most at-risk children and their communities around the world. This small change results in the difference between a safe and healthy child to one who might face life-threatening illnesses through contaminated water supplies. At this point, we can gauge that donations will be properly utilised by this cause and will be incredibly significant to the lives of these children, stressing the importance of who we give to rather than a quantitative measure.  

However, it’s a big ask for everyday people, simply trying to do their part, to pause and assess how their time and money could best be spent. Sometimes, it is just simpler and seems just as effective to donate to any charity that loosely relates to an ethical issue that matters most to us. To make better decisions when it comes to giving, online organisations such as The Life You Can Save and GiveWell can help evaluate and recommend high-impact, cost-effective and evidence-based charities, proving that everyone has the potential to make a meaningful impact.  

By taking a few extra measures to reflect and consider where and how we direct our intentions, we can make more ethical choices that result in sustainable outcomes and give to others in a way that transforms their lives for the better.  

This article won the 2024 Young Writers’ Competition Under 18s category.