The Moral Relevance of the Distinction Between Domesticated and Wild Animals

Abstract This article considers whether a morally relevant distinction can be drawn between wild and domesticated animals. The term wildness can be used in several different ways, only one of which (constitutive wildness, meaning an animal that has not been domesticated by being bred in particular ways) is generally paired and contrasted with domesticated. Domesticated animals are normally deliberately bred and confined. One of the article's arguments concerns human initiatives that establish relations with animals and thereby change what is owed to these animals. The main relations of interest in ethics are the vulnerability and dependence in animals that are created when humans establish certain relations with them on farms, in zoos, in laboratories, and the like. Domestication is a pervasive way in which humans make animals vulnerable, and thereby duties of animal care and protection arise in a persistent way.

The Moral Relevance of the Distinction Between Domesticated and Wild Animals Chapter