Americans spend $70 billion on pets, and that money could do more good

Americans spend $70 billion on pets, and that money could do more good
Pet spending in the U.S. is estimated to have exceeded US$72 billion. Credit: star5112, CC BY-SA

Sylar, the border collie, has his own mansion along with a trampoline and indoor pool. The dog's adorable features, along with his notable intelligence, earned his owner's devotion along with many social media fans.

Sylar's mansion, where other pets can visit and indulge in expensive spa-like treatments such as massages, drew the media's attention to the increased spending in China on pet-related services. The Chinese are forecast to spend about US$2.6 billion on their pets by 2019 – a 50 percent increase from 2016.

This, however, pales in comparison with what Americans spend on their pets annually. This year alone, pet spending in the U.S. is estimated to exceed $72 billion, which is more than the combined GDP of the 39 poorest countries in the world.

Of course, these expenditures are not distributed equally among all pets. Sylar, like other celebrities, lives in the lap of luxury, while many of his fellow creatures experience hunger, homelessness, abuse and other deprivations.

How are we to think about the ethics of spending so much money on pets when it could be used to alleviate the suffering in the world?

The utilitarian tradition

Ethicists have long grappled with questions of right and wrong. One of the most notable ethical traditions – utilitarianism – has had a lot to say about how other sentient beings, besides humans, should be treated along with how resources ought to be distributed among them.

According to utilitarianism, an action is right if it produces the best overall consequences, out of all possible actions, for all those who are affected. In other words, in its simplest form, the goal is to maximize happiness and to minimize suffering.

Some philosophers, such as Thomas Scanlon, argue that ethics is about what humans "owe to each other." But utilitarianism broadens the scope of the moral community to include the interests of all sentient beings, including those of . As Jeremy Bentham, one of the earliest proponents of utilitarianism, wrote in 1789, "The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor, 'Can they talk?' but 'Can they suffer?'"

The classical utilitarians not only advocated for the interests of nonhuman animals, but also for the interests of all humans, including prisoners and women. Both Bentham and 19th-century philosopher John Stuart Mill made such arguments centuries before it was fashionable to do so.

This was captured in Bentham's motto, "Everybody to count for one, nobody for more than one."

Americans spend $70 billion on pets, and that money could do more good
Credit: Chart: The Conversation, CC-BY-ND Source: American Pet Products Association

How to create the most good

Bentham's philosophy later gave rise to Peter Singer's principle of equal consideration of interests, which states when determining right and wrong, all those whose interests are affected should be included in the ethical decision-making process, and those interests ought to be weighed equally.

In fact, Singer's equal consideration of interests can be used not only to make a case against racism and sexism, but also against "speciesism" – the idea that the interests of humans count for more than the interests of other species.

It is tempting to think that people arguing for the principle of equal consideration of the interests of animals would be in favor of pet mansions and costumes. But would they?

The answer to this question can be found in Singer's view called "effective altruism," which is based on the premise that many affluent people spend a lot of money on nonnecessities such as pet costumes or the latest technological gadget. According to one estimate, about $440 million of pet spending in the U.S. was on Halloween pet costumes alone. If that money was instead donated to a good cause, then more good or utility could be produced.

When thinking about creating the most good possible, effective altruism maintains that people should reflect on how the allocation of their resources such as their money and time impacts other sentient beings.

Some suggestions endorsed by this approach are to donate to efficient charities that aim to improve global health initiatives such as stopping the spread of diseases like malaria. In fact, some specialists have developed methodologies and lists of recommended charities to help people figure out what cause to support.

Do pets need mansions or Halloween costumes?

Those persuaded by the moral argument behind the effective altruism movement may want to allocate their resources differently.

If a fraction of worldwide pet spending, say 25 percent, was allocated elsewhere – for instance, to mitigating the suffering of millions of farm animals or to preventing malaria by providing mosquito nets – more good could certainly be done.

As an ethicist, pet owner and vegetarian, I don't deny that the interests of animals matter, and while Sylar is indeed one privileged pup, his lifestyle comes with costs to others and to the planet itself.

Explore further

Could anti-speciesism and veganism form the basis for a rational society?

Provided by The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.The Conversation

Citation: Americans spend $70 billion on pets, and that money could do more good (2018, October 15) retrieved 23 September 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 15, 2018
So, I assume the author's intent it show us simpletons that we need a super smart government official to direct our economy to achieve better outcomes for all.

Oct 15, 2018
its the liberal way.... use examples from the 0.0001% to tell the other 99.9999% how they should live. Do pets need all those things? NO. Do people need pets? Obviously, I know one person who does, but just doesn't know it.

Oct 15, 2018
What?? No mention of a dog having a higher CO2 "cost" than an SUV.

Oct 15, 2018
This statement defies belief (since Singer main fame is in animal right's): "In fact, Singer's equal consideration of interests can be used not only to make a case against racism and sexism, but also against "speciesism" – the idea that the interests of humans count for more than the interests of other species." Not "but also"--Singer's equal consideration of interest started there.

Oct 15, 2018
This is so sick. Get a life.

Oct 15, 2018
what about the money that is wasted on make up? or in bling bling for the cars? or in weapons?

of course pets are necessary.... most children are raised in chaos, in divorced homes, in environments with no or little affection, so a pet helps them to cope with life. I bet there must be studies indicating that pet owners that are engaged with their companion are less prompt to bad things like hurting others, hurting themselves, and so on. Loneliness, lack of care, isolation, all can be very high in the human civilization. Children, disabled and elderly suffer the most from humans.... so there are substances to cope, there are pets, there is exercise and so on.

Oct 15, 2018
"Do pets need mansions or Halloween costumes?" Do humans??

Oct 15, 2018
pets need things, like vet physicians, like drugs, eg., cats need catnip. I wonder if cats are as harmful for little ecosystems if they are high on catnip frequently.... I wonder if their predatory tendencies is reduced by using catnip and therefore making them more friendly to the surroundings. Dogs usually need things too to calm down, some can have issues.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more