Pet? Companion animal? Ethicists say term matters

May 04, 2011 By KATHY MATHESON , Associated Press

(AP) -- Are you the "owner" of a dog or cat? Maybe you should consider yourself a "human caregiver" instead. And Fido and Fluffy? Perhaps they should be "companion animals," not just "pets."

Such vocabulary shifts will help elevate the discourse about other species and, in turn, improve our treatment of them, according to the new Journal on Animal Ethics.

The foreword in the peer-reviewed academic publication, which was first published last month, even suggests getting rid of terms like "critters," "beasts" and "," along with phrases such as "drunk as a skunk" and "eat like a pig."

"We do need to examine our language about because a lot of it is derogatory in the sense that it belittles them and our relations with them," journal co-editor Andrew Linzey said.

Linzey, a theologian, heads the Centre for Animal Ethics at the University of Oxford in England. The journal, to be published twice yearly, is the first scholarly periodical to have the words "animal ethics" in the title, according to its publisher, the University of Illinois Press.

It's not surprising that researchers are re-examining their language as animal treatment becomes more of a social issue, said James Serpell, a professor of at the University of Pennsylvania's School of Veterinary Medicine.

But Serpell doesn't necessarily agree with the recommended terminology, which he said could be taken to "absurd" extremes.

"Relabeling pets 'companion animals' could be misleading as well," Serpell said. "The fish in the ornamental fish tank aren't really anyone's companion."

More important for respecting animals is how they are perceived and treated in the legal system, said Susan Cosby, CEO of the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

"Currently animals are considered property regardless of what term we use to describe them," Cosby said in a statement Wednesday.

Linzey declined further comment because of previous media coverage that he said inaccurately caricatured the issue as political correctness run amok. He stressed the preferred language does not stem from a desire to avoid "insulting" pets.

"Obviously, animals cannot be insulted in the way in which people can be," he wrote in an email to The Associated Press.

Journal co-editor Priscilla Cohn, a philosophy professor emerita at Penn State-Abington near Philadelphia, noted in an email that the discussion has implications for humans as well.

Cruelty to animals has been linked with anti-social and abusive behavior in people, she wrote, while overcrowding animals on factory farms has repercussions for both human health and the environment.

Cohn also said researchers continue to uncover fascinating insights into the animal kingdom, including communication among elephants and the social structure of wolves, which "are not the blood-thirsty wild beasts that many people imagine."

"In other words, there has been an explosion of knowledge about animals that should make us consider them in a new light and perhaps change the manner in which we treat them," wrote Cohn, who has six cats and a dog.

In California, The Humane Society of the United States is backing legislation to update language in old state animal-control laws. The bill would replace "pound" with "shelter" and "destroy" with "euthanize," changes that better reflect current views on animal welfare.

"Those words matter," said Jennifer Fearing, the society's senior state director.

The linguistic debate, which Serpell said has been covered previously in various academic journals, stems from animals being in a gray area: they are sentient creatures - more than objects or property - but less than fully human.

Yet he acknowledged that inherently derogatory or disparaging language "perhaps makes it easier for us to justify exploiting them."

Still, Serpell sees nothing wrong with the word "pet," which the fourth edition of Webster's New World College Dictionary defines as "an animal that is tamed or domesticated and kept as a companion or treated with fondness."

Serpell's family has a veritable menagerie at home: a dog, a cat, three aquaria of fish, a pair of degus - like small chinchillas - and a bearded dragon.

"We call them all `pets' and don't consider the term denigrating," he said.

Explore further: Best of Last Week – New type of qubit created, Hubble sees a glowing galaxy and extreme agreeing may solve disagreements

3.3 /5 (3 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Dogs' family status depends on family's locale

Aug 15, 2010

Man's best friend might just be treated like any other animal depending on where the owners live. A study by David Blouin, assistant professor of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Indiana University South Bend, ...

Pets bring health, happiness and healing

May 27, 2009

Doctors may soon be prescribing their patients a script to adopt a cat or dog, given a recent study found an estimated $3.86 billion was saved on health spending in Australia, due to the benefits of pet ownership.

Network uses pets as sentinels

Mar 26, 2006

U.S. researchers are using medical records of companion animals to develop an early warning system for disease threats including bird flu.

Researcher reveals the truth about cats and dogs

Mar 02, 2007

Ask most pet owners, and they will tell you they love their pets. So why is it that every year in Australia around 400,000 cats and dogs are surrendered to animal shelters or pounds?

Recommended for you

How to win a Tour de France sprint

20 hours ago

The final dash to the line in a Tour de France sprint finish may appear to the bystander to be a mess of bodies trying to cram into the width of a road, but there is a high degree of strategy involved. It ...

Bible museum planned for US capital

Jul 18, 2014

The devout Christian family that upended a part of President Barack Obama's health care law aims to open a Bible museum in Washington in 2017, a spokesperson for the project said Friday.

User comments : 5

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Norezar
1.8 / 5 (5) May 04, 2011
Wow. What kind of PC crap is this?

What's wrong with these people?

George_Rodart
2.3 / 5 (3) May 04, 2011
These idiots don't understand the cultural meaning of the word "pet". What a waste of grant money!
emsquared
2.7 / 5 (3) May 04, 2011
I might actually care if this study tried to demonstrate that people who call their pets "pets" treat their animals worse than people who call their pets "animal companions", or something. Oh well, at least England's taxpayers picked up that bill.
Shelgeyr
2 / 5 (4) May 05, 2011
"New Speak" again. PC garbage.

I wouldn't mind so much, however, if we highlighted that part in the already existing (i.e. not "new") definition of "Ethicist" where it clearly says:
"Noun (title), often used as a pejorative adjective; a politically correct euphemism for 'sociologically developmentally retarded yet suffering from an extreme moral superiority complex', which in turn has transmogrified into 'sociologically developmentally differently-abled yet suffering from an extreme moral superiority complex'. Usage is commonly coupled with the understood sentiment of 'couldn't get a real job'. Symptoms range from a mild 'get a clue' level of general civil annoyance up to outright sociopathy. Though the complex is rare, sufferers are most often found in careers that are publicly funded. Contagious only through prolonged exposure, susceptibility increases linearly with a decrease in IQ.


I love my dictionary!
frajo
3 / 5 (2) May 05, 2011
Human history and prehistory show that animals (Latin "anima" = breath, soul) never have been considered to be unanimated objects. On the contrary, some cultures (e.g. Hinduism) even assign higher-than-human values to certain animal species.

The modern world notion of animals as legal "objects" is just another indicator of the backwardness of legal systems. (Don't forget that they also allow killing and torture if it's properly relabelled.)

Of course, animals are more than unanimated objects. Millions of people know that, who owe them the little remaining comfort of their life.

(As I don't know the semantic corona of "pet", I refrain from commenting on that.)