II. "Animal"

[…] At present, we commonly make a distinction between domesticated and wild animals, as well as between captive and free animals. According to the former distinction, an animal is domesticated to the degree that humans influenced their evolution, and an animal is wild to the degree that humans did not influence their evolution. And according to the latter distinction, an animal is captive to the degree that humans control their behaviour, and an animal is free to the degree that humans do not control their behaviour. For example, we commonly think, the animals who live in our homes tend to be both captive and domesticated, the animals who live in forests tend to be free and wild, and the animals who live in our cities tend to be somewhere in the middle. 

Many people think that these distinctions have implications for our treatment of animals. In particular, many people think that our moral duties to captive and domesticated animals are different from our moral duties to free and wild animals. On the one hand, we have a duty to help captive and domesticated animals more, since these animals are more vulnerable and dependent on us, and we are more responsible for their predicament. On the other hand, we have a duty to leave free and wild animals alone more, since these animals are less vulnerable and dependent on us, and we are less responsible for their predicament. Meanwhile, we have a combination of these duties to the “liminal” animals who exist in between these extremes.

Our influence on animals, both at the individual level and at the population level, is increasingly pervasive.

But even if we accept these distinctions, we might need to apply them differently moving forward. After all, we now live in the Anthropocene, a geological epoch in which humanity is the dominant force on the planet. Increasingly, humans are at least partly influencing the evolution of most if not all animals, and are at least partly controlling the behaviour of most if not all animals. In some cases our influence is direct, such as when we impact animals through deforestation and development, and in other cases our influence is indirect, such as when we impact animals through human-caused climate change. Either way, our influence on animals, both at the individual level and at the population level, is increasingly pervasive.

In light of our influence on the planet, we might need to partly collapse our ways of seeing, thinking about, and talking about domesticated and captive animals, on one hand, and wild and free animals, on the other hand. In particular, we might need to accept that most if not all animals are now at least partly domesticated and captive, and, consequently, that we now have at least a weak moral duty to help most if not all animals to the degree that we can. As with humans and other animals, it would be a mistake to collapse these categories entirely – there are still important differences between, say, dogs and wolves that we should track. But once again, we currently overstate the differences, and we need to strike a better balance. [...] 

Originally published in The Philosopher, vol. 110, no. 1 (The New Basics: Planet), 2022