Cat vs. Duck, and why one deserves our best: Ethics and Religion Talk

Follow on Twitter
on May 28, 2013 at 8:11 AM, updated May 28, 2013 at 8:12 AM
brushholdfin_SU_C_SUNDAYImagine a purple cat using a toothbrush to attack a pencil-wielding duck as a rat and dog observe. Cute! But seriously, is it OK to care for one animal over another? Cue this week's Ethics and Religion Talk.

GRAND RAPIDS, MI — Perhaps you've seen a certain YouTube clip featuring a cat in a shark costume chasing a duck while riding a Roomba vacuum. The video has been hailed as the pinnacle of the Internet. It's also a lighthearted segue into this week's Ethics and Religion Talk.

This week's question comes from MLive reader Jason Ashley-Oswalt:

What is the basis for a separate standard of treatment for companion animals like cats and dogs versus farm animals or wild animals like ducks and deer? Why do we extend a different set of moral considerations to pets than we do to "food animals?"

Ethics and Religion Talk, by Rabbi David Krishef

From the Jewish perspective, there is no good religious answer to Jason’s question. There is a basis for distinguishing between animals which may be slaughtered for food, like goats, sheep and cows, and those which may not be slaughtered for food, like pigs, horses and ostriches. There is no basis, however, for treating dogs as pets, but equally intelligent pigs as farm animals.

Whether we treat an animal as a pet or a work animal is cultural and, to some extent, dependent on circumstances. A cat is likely to be treated as a pet by a city owner, but a work animal that catches mice on a farm. My uncle acquired a doberman to be a guard dog for his factory on the south side of Chicago, but over time began to take “Dale” home on weekends and then on weeknights as well, as she was promoted from work animal to pet.

In theory, we might claim that religious tradition ought to mandate treating all animals as well as we treat our dogs. But, in practice, I’d rather not encourage the skunk who lives in the wooded area behind my house to camp out at the back door for an evening snack. The best answer I can give is that wild animals, who are completely self-sufficient, are fulfilling God’s mandate for living out their lives according to their nature; while domesticated animals, whether pets or farm animals, have had nature bred out of them by human beings. Because human beings are responsible for ruining the nature of domesticated and companion animals, then we must accept responsibility taking care of their needs and treating them better than wild animals.

Here are two responses from the panel:


    “Religious texts do not distinguish between companion animals and farm animals. The Bible refers to dogs mostly as dangerous, and only occasionally as part of a shepherd's work. In Hinduism, animals are sometimes avatars of gods, but there is little said about animals as personal companions. Of course, Fido, a famous dog name, is from the Latin for faithful, a trait attributed to dogs in particular.

    “All this tells me that there is no common religious basis for distinguishing companion animals from other animals. This puts the question into secular rather than religious ethics, and this requires us to ask if animals have rights which humans are bound to respect. Note my deliberate echoing of the 19th-century Dred Scott decision, which held that a slave had no rights that a free person was bound to respect. Clearly, humans were willing to deny basic rights to people not very long ago. To suggest that animals have rights is for most people as far-fetched as the idea that slaves had rights.

    “That we extend respect to pets, sharing our households and providing for their food and shelter and more, suggests that we regard them as if they had rights. Since almost every animal has been treated as a companion at some point — including tarantulas and snakes — we humans are clearly able to form strong ethical respect for all animals. The question thus becomes not 'Why do we treat companion animals better' but 'Why do we not treat all animals as we do our animal companions?' If we are going to live in close quarters, is it ethical to include some and not all?”

    Ethics and Religion Talk: Animal rights, or not
    Ethics and Religion Talk: Is deer hunting OK?

  • Dr. Aly Mageed, a Shura member of the Islamic Mosque and Religious Institute of Grand Rapids

    “The Quran considers all animals wild or domesticated to be communities just like ours that praise their Lord through fulfilling their mission on earth. Killing an animal without a reason is sinful from an Islamic perspective. Sport killing is considered vain. Killing is allowed only for a need which may include endangering lives or being hopelessly sick. Killing is also allowed for benefits such as food or benefiting from the animal's skin, hair or other things, provided that there is a true need for it.

    Once the animal is under human care though, one has to treat it with utmost kindness. Feeding and appropriate veterinary care is its right. If this is not affordable, then the animal should be released to others who can afford it or back in the wilderness if it does not put human/or other animal lives in danger. If one is to kill, one has to use the least painful and fastest way. Wild animals that come to our attention should receive the same treatment under the same guidelines. The only possible difference is the level of benefits the particular animal may provide to both the individual and the ecological balance at large.”
