ACERCA DE ESTE EPISODIO
Is it ever morally acceptable to keep pets? While most of us take pet-keeping for granted and think of it as a source of affection, companionship, and care, it is possible to see it very differently. Angie Pepper and Richard Healey argue that pet-keeping is not simply a private choice, but a socio-political institution that raises deep questions about power, control, and harm. In our conversation, I ask them to explain and defend their view that keeping pets is morally impermissible, and to explore what alternatives might look like for our relationships with animals.
A short, accessible version of Angie and Richard's paper is here: https://iai.tv/articles/the-unjust-power-dynamics-of-pet-ownership-auid-3518
Another of their papers is here:
Healey, Richard, and Angie Pepper. "Interspecies justice: agency, self-determination, and assent", Philosophical Studies 178.4 (2021): 1223-1243.
Work with an opposing view:
Cochrane, Alasdair (2009). Do animals have an interest in liberty? Political Studies, 57(3), 660–679. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00742.x
Cochrane, Alasdair (2014). Born in chains? The ethics of animal domestication. In Lori Gruen (Ed.), The Ethics of Captivity (156–173). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
A general intro to the ethics of pet keeping (also with an opposing view):
Palmer, Clare and T. J. Kasperbauer (2022). Companion animals. In Benjamin Hale, Andrew Light and Lydia Lawhon (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Environmental Ethics (343–354). London: Routledge.
Ethics Untangled is produced by IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds.
As well as the podcast, Ethics Untangled is also the name for the long-form online presence of IDEA.
Bluesky: @ethicsuntangled.bluesky.social
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/idea_leeds/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ideacetl
