A new journal devoted to animal ethics apparently thinks our reference to our "pets" is not a term of endearment but more an insult to the animals we love. Now I'm not denying there's some sense in there somewhere because they argue that the words we use imply the treatment we give our pets. Absolutely. Isn't that why we call them "pets"? Or is this in the same category of the criticism attached to Cameron for calling an Opposition colleague "Dear" ?
When it comes to the animals we are used to calling "wild" I understand they prefer we call them "free-ranging" or "free-living". Fair enough if it will help. But actually I've always thought of the reference to wild animals as hugely romantic and usefully informative. Take Tigers for example, or Bull Elephants. We call them wild because in the wild, or rather in the free range, they are wild. And if we meet one of these magnificent animals in the wild I doubt if our behaviour, our respect for them, and treatment of them, would change constructively if we thought of them simply as free ranging. The same applies to free-range chickens. But as I said there's some sense in there somewhere. Battery hens for example could well be referred to as innocent prisoners. With such a title would our view of the morality of keeping battery hens be modified ?
No comments:
Post a Comment