Essay Sample on Social Contract Theorists and Petting

Introduction

Pet owning has been one of the hobbies and practices very common across the globe. Apart from reducing loneliness, pets are maintained to provide emotional support and reduce stress levels (Reimers, 2015). Also, they have tipped to increase one's social activities and support self-esteem in a child as well as emotional development. However, with the failure to follow the rights which govern pets, conflicting ideas have emerged on whether keeping pets is morally right. Such debates apply the thoughts on social contract theory which argues that subjects are deemed to surrender a portion of their freedom to a ruler's authority. However, social theorists cannot say that keeping a pet is not morally right since animals like dogs are saved from harsh living conditions in their natural environment which only follows the survival for the fittest phrase.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

One of the reasons why theorists cannot urge than keeping a pet is not morally right is that pet owners are in a position to protect pets. Under contractarianism, individuals with the ability to embrace and comprehend a contract are the ones who are eligible to have moral rights (Koggel, 2006). In this scenario, social contract excludes children and people who are mentally ill. Social theorists argue that, just like children, animals cannot perceive rules and cannot be protected by the laws. However, pet animals cannot be compared to other animals in the streets as they enjoy protection. For example, it is hard for an individual to kicks someone's dog in the presence of its owner. Owning a dog excludes it from vices such as human brutality and adverse weather conditions such as rain and freezing episodes. Thus, social theorists cannot urge that pets are excluded from the protection due to their inability to perceive rights as dog owners provide a substantial degree of protection.

Another reason is that there exist animal rights which govern how animal owners treat their animals. It should be noted that the main reason for the social contract theorists to oppose petting dogs is the violation of their freedom such as living in kennels and having fixed eating schedules (McDaniel & Pinches, 2008). However, not all dog owners treat their dogs in the wrong manner. For example, a lot of owners feed their dogs well and provide shelter to give their dogs a high level of comfort. Also, dog owners are seen in the streets giving their dogs walks which translates to a high level of care than the ones in the streets. Although there are a few individuals who mistreat their dogs, there are avenues where concerned parties can report such individuals. Social contract theorists should cease to generalize that all dog owners abuse dogs and visit some houses of dog lovers to witness the care offered to dogs and how happy they are in their masters' houses.

Also, social contract theorists are not in a position to attach owning a pet with being morally wrong as even in their own, pets will not achieve total freedom. From their point of view, social theorists urge that owning a pet is limiting its freedom and they should be left to roam around just like the other wild animals. However, animals cannot be compared to human beings who have the rationality to think the effect of action to their fellow human being. While in their natural environment, pets will fight for food, unlike people who will engage in sharing options. Besides, the most energetic animals will survive in the streets due to their ability to snatch food from other weak pets. In this case, awarding a pet's total freedom will introduce hardships as life will now be based on survival of the fittest just like in the juggle.

It is wrong for a social contract theorist to condemn petting as it results to mutual benefit. Pets are not only kept for prestige, but they offer services such as eliminating boredom, providing security and supporting one's social activities. On the other hand, pets benefit by enjoying veterinary visits which keep their health in check. In their line of thought, social contract theorists only think that mutual benefit exists where each party is aware of its benefit from specific cooperation. Providing a pet with its essential needs can be termed as a way of appreciating its contribution to the owner. If pets did not benefit from being petted, it would be considered as evidence to term petting as morally wrong. Thus, the presence of a mutual benefit is an indication that pets' benefit from their stay and that their services are compensated, terming petting dogs as a morally upright act.

Conclusion

In summary, social contract theorists have presented valid claims which are against petting. However, the advantages of petting dogs surpass the disadvantages validating petting as a morally right gesture. For example, dogs are provided with shelter and food which are hard to get when dogs are awarded freedom of living in their natural environment just like other wild animals. Although there are a few of pet owners who mistreat dogs, their adverse actions do not cancel the care and protection offered to dogs by other dog owners. Besides, the presence of authorities where people can report dog mistreatment shows the efforts put to ensure dogs have a pleasant stay in their masters' houses.

References

Koggel, C. M. (2006). Moral issues in global perspective. Peterborough, Ont: Broadview Press.

McDaniel, J. B., & Pinches, C. R. (2008). Good news for animals? Christian approaches to animal well-being. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock.

Reimers, C. (2015). The perfect family storm: Tips to restore mental health and strengthen family relationships in today's world. Bloomington: Balboa Press.