A child can't be owned, but parents are legally responsible for their child's care. A painting and a dog can be owned; both fall under the jurisdiction of the law and in particular, property rights. But why should a dog, man's best friend, an animal with a mind and emotions, fall under the same category as a painting? How could the law be so foolish? Requiring legal guardianship for animals would have radical consequences for how we live our lives.
People, Property, or Pets? (New Directions in the Human-Animal Bond)
Previous
Previous
A dissociation between moral judgments and justifications
Next
Next